Nicholas Soames: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend, together with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence—civilian, political and military—on a remarkable achievement. Will he tell us whether, in light of the decks having been cleared,
	it is his intention to start work now on the preparatory work for the next strategic defence review, which comes along much quicker than one thinks?

Jeremy Corbyn: Now that the Secretary of State has finally got around to mentioning Trident, will he please say why he cannot give us some news in his statement on the expenditure of £1 billion on long-lead items for the reconstruction of the Trident system and the missiles that go with it, and why we are still contemplating spending £100 billion on a weapon of mass destruction that does not bring any security to this country, but merely a great deal of expenditure and danger?

Stephen Phillips: On behalf of the regiment in which I had the honour to serve, may I join my right hon. Friend, and indeed the shadow Secretary of State, in paying tribute to Lance Corporal Davies for his sacrifice? No Government Member doubts the enormity of the £38 billion hole left by the previous Government or that it is, as the shadow Secretary of State has said, the principal weakness of the Labour Government. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what effect promising much and delivering little has on the morale of our armed forces?

George Howarth: Further to that point of order and to your response, Mr Speaker. Before the House prorogued, I tabled four questions to the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and received replies to exactly the same effect as those that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) described: the Secretary of State said that he would submit the information that I sought to the Leveson inquiry. In view of the ruling that you have just given, should I re-table those questions, or should the Secretary of State answer them?

Mr Speaker: I do not want this to become a debate; I am a little concerned that it might. I will err on the side of tolerance, but I hope that it will not be abused by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh).

David Blunkett: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why the Labour Government were responsible for the global meltdown, but the present Government are not responsible for the drop in growth and the double dip recession?

Vincent Cable: Clearly, the previous Government were not responsible for the global meltdown, but they were responsible for building up the largest and most volatile banking sector in the western world, and it was from that that the collapse followed.
	To achieve a recovery, we need to build on some of the positive trends that are beginning to emerge. Despite the deep-seated problems of the economy and the slow growth, we have seen 634,000 private sector jobs created in the past two years, which is almost twice as many as have been lost in the public sector. Private sector job growth explains why our unemployment level, although it is distressingly high and a tragedy for many individuals, is no higher than that in the United States.

Vincent Cable: I would be here for much of the afternoon if I listed all of them, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will be familiar with some of the big and high-profile investments, including those in the car industry by companies such as Nissan, Jaguar, Land Rover and others, which are important not just in themselves, but because they involve a long-term investment commitment to the UK and bring behind them a large supply chain of small companies.

Barry Sheerman: I have great admiration and respect for the Secretary of State because he is one of the few leaders of the coalition Government who have ever had a proper job. What does he say to the Foreign Secretary, a man who has had very little experience in the real world, whose message to business people is that they are lazy and should work harder?

Vincent Cable: I do not think that the Foreign Secretary actually said that. He works extremely hard with me and my colleagues promoting British business around the world. A large part of his job is commercial diplomacy and he is doing it extremely well.
	One key proposal in the enterprise and regulatory reform Bill is legislation for the UK Green investment bank, which will drive the transition to a green economy. The Bill will set the bank’s purpose, ensure its independence and make funding provision. The bank will be formed as a public company under the Companies Act, with initial funding of £3 billion to March 2015. It will operate independently from Government, but will agree its strategic priorities with the Government. Until formally established, the Government are making investments, on commercial terms, in green infrastructure through a specialist team in my Department. I reported to a Standing Committee of the House two weeks ago on its progress.

John Redwood: I think that the Secretary of State agrees with me that the Vickers proposals for more competition among our domestic banks are very good. What further measures can the Government take urgently to get some banking capacity in competition in the high street?

Vincent Cable: My right hon. Friend is quite right that the J.P. Morgan experience underlines the wisdom of separating the so-called casinos from traditional banking, but we take the view that in this country—J.P. Morgan, of course, is not a British bank—the solution we have advocated achieves that result at considerably lower cost than would the more extreme measures that I think he is advocating.
	As with many other important industrial transformations, the Government’s role in the Green investment bank’s infancy is key. By setting up the bank, which is the first of its kind in the world, we can provide capital and funding to nurture these nascent markets and secure a global competitive advantage for the UK.

Andrew Love: May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to an earlier point? As I understand it, the Volcker rule would have outlawed the activities that led to J.P. Morgan losing $1.5 billion. Is such a proposal included in the Act he is talking about?

Barry Sheerman: Before the Secretary of State moves on from that point—I can see from his papers, I think, that he is coming towards the end of his speech—I would like to point out that he has not once yet said anything about innovation, he said little about entrepreneurs and enterprise, and he said something complacent about the levels of unemployment, which include 1 million unemployed young people. What is in the Queen’s Speech about that and what is he going to do about that?

Andrew Love: The right hon. Gentleman is well known for his support for co-operative and mutual organisations. In January, the Prime Minister spoke warmly about a consolidating Act for co-operatives, but it did not appear in the Queen’s Speech. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Government have not forgotten about it?

Chuka Umunna: I would say that their pay should be linked to performance against criteria and specified objectives. Our argument in relation to RBS is that the Government are the biggest shareholder. They have lectured others about the need for greater shareholder activism, but it would be good to see it on the Government Front Bench.
	However, despite all the things I have welcomed, in sum, it is business as usual for this Government. This Queen’s Speech signals little change in approach. For the person looking for work, this Queen’s Speech offered no hope; for individuals, families and firms faced with increasing energy and water bills, and rising transport costs, it offered no hope; and for sound and successful small businesses struggling to get by in this recession of the Government’s making, it offered no hope. However, listening to the Business Secretary, one would think that the Queen’s Speech had been positively received. I do not know who he has been listening to, but this is what our business leaders have said about his Government’s Queen’s Speech. On Friday, Justin King, the CEO of Sainsbury’s and a member of the Prime Minister’s business advisory group, which is meeting as I speak, said:
	“Consistency is what gives confidence. Unfortunately, what we have seen over the past couple of years is something that could not be described as a consistent pursuit of a clear policy”.
	In other words, uncertainty—created by the Business Secretary’s Department and all across Whitehall—is reducing businesses’ confidence to invest for the long term. On Saturday, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce said:
	“there is a big black hole when it comes to aiding businesses to create enterprise, generate wealth and grow”.
	Business people are clear: what they want is a Government who will step up and work in partnership with them to create the conditions for private sector growth. What they have got is a Government who step aside and leave business to struggle on alone.
	What was the Government’s response to those comments by business people? Step forward the Foreign Secretary. Yesterday—in what the Business Secretary described as “commercial diplomacy”—he said:
	“I think they should be getting on with the task of creating more of those jobs and more of those exports, rather than complaining about it. There’s only one growth strategy: work hard”.
	What on earth does the Foreign Secretary think this country’s business owners do all day? His message is clear. He is saying that the fact the economy is not growing has nothing to do with the Government’s failed economic policies. He is saying that it is not growing because the people in all our businesses out there are not working hard enough. How out of touch can the Foreign Secretary be?

Chuka Umunna: I am not saying that the Governor of the Bank of England was wrong. What I am saying is that we need growth for a credible fiscal policy. Many, including Government Members, would not necessarily argue that the Governor has always been right, particularly during the 2008-09 crisis.
	The people have spoken, our businesses have spoken, families up and down this country have spoken, but the Government do not want to listen, so they persist with the same failed economic strategy, the same failed approach, exemplified in their Finance Bill carried through from the last Session with its granny tax, caravan tax, pasty tax and tax break for millionaires.
	What of measures to put in place the building blocks for our economy in the long term? Was any change signalled in this Queen’s Speech? The Business Secretary famously wrote to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister about industrial policy, outlining his and their failures. He quite rightly argued in his letter for Government to adopt an industrial policy. He said he sensed that there was “something important missing” from what the Government were and are doing—and that was “a compelling vision” of where the country was headed beyond deficit reduction. He rightly said, too, that
	“market forces are insufficient for creating the long term industrial capacities we need”
	and that
	“we should be willing to identify British success stories as identified through success in trade and explicitly get behind them at the highest political level.”
	That is precisely what we did in government in respect of the automotive industry—and we are now reaping the rewards from that.
	The problem for the Business Secretary is that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister do not buy into active government and industrial policy. To their names we can add that of the Foreign Secretary as another roadblock to the active government and industrial policy that those who own and work in businesses want to see. What evidence is there in the Queen’s Speech that the Business Secretary has been able to exercise any influence over these roadblocks to bring about a change of approach? None whatsoever.
	The Business Secretary’s letter identified our energy and low-carbon industries as an important sector. We are told—the Business Secretary mentioned it—that the enterprise and regulatory reform Bill will include provisions to set up the Green investment bank, which is an essential component of an industrial policy for a low-carbon economy. According to conventional definitions, however, a bank is an entity that borrows and lends money. Given the absence of those capacities and capabilities, we are left not with a body that can be called a bank, but with a fund. That is the only proper name that we can give to this initiative. It is not planned to become a bank until 2016, and will do so then only if public sector net debt is falling as a percentage of GDP at that point, which is by no means certain.
	Often cited by the Business Secretary as evidence of an industrial policy, or industrial strategy, is the regional growth fund, and that was exposed as a complete shambles by the independent National Audit Office on Friday. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Business Secretary have been going around the country boasting that the scheme will create half a million jobs. What did the National Audit Office tell us on Friday? Only 41,000 jobs will be created, and many of them would have been created in any event. The House will remember that the Government abolished the future jobs fund on the basis that it was too expensive. It was claimed that each job created from that fund cost £6,500. How much did the NAO tell us each of these jobs has cost us? Up to £200,000.
	While I am at it, let me thank the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk)—who has been chuntering from a sedentary position—for the letter that we all received from him inviting us to encourage businesses in our constituencies to bid for RGF money last week. In that letter, he said
	“my officials are ready to help”
	and
	“there will be plenty of opportunities for bidders to meet the appraisal team to discuss their ideas before the bidding deadline”.
	There is, of course, a small snag. The NAO told us that the fund started off with 12 economists seconded from other Departments to process these matters. They all returned to their home Departments before due diligence on the first round of bids began, and the fund had no dedicated administration budget. Let us hope that there are some officials left for us to see.

John Redwood: I remind the House that I offer business advice to a global engineering business and a small investor management business.
	We meet today with the winds of danger blowing once again from the euro area. We meet to discuss measures in the Queen’s Speech to make Britain more competitive, to equip Britain better, and to produce more jobs and deliver more goods and services around the world. No one in this House would disagree with the aim. All the main parties agree that we need more economic growth. I think they all agree it is easier to get a deficit down when we are creating more jobs, getting people who are out of work into those jobs, and generating more income and activity, than when we are not. There is no disagreement across the Floor of the House about the aim.
	However, when debating how we are going to get that growth and give the best possible support to the companies and individuals who create the jobs and make things happen, we must also recognise that there is a very
	threatening and menacing problem on our doorsteps. As we meet here today, we know that the Greek political parties may not be able to form a Government at all, or they may not be able to form a Government that can put through the necessary measures to meet the requirements of the EU and IMF loans in Greece. They may decide on new elections in some weeks’ time, creating a dangerous hiatus; and those elections may produce a Government who fully reflect the view of the Greek people, as expressed in the last election to a considerable extent, that they do not wish to co-operate any longer with the lethal mixture of policies that the euroland senior politicians have put forward.
	That matters to the United Kingdom, not only because some of our exports and services are sold within euroland, but because, as members of the European Union, we will participate in some of the meetings about what kind of growth strategy Europe as a whole can develop, and we will be a party to some of the decisions that will determine the future of the euro. If the Greek tragedy unfolds such that the Greek state cannot meet the requirements, the European Union has to decide either to give in yet again and come up with another compromise, or that there has to be an early exit of Greece from the euro. It would be better for the British economy and for the future of euroland if an early exit of Greece from the euro were organised quickly, and in confidence up to the point when the necessary announcements must be made. I would not expect the British Government to confirm that that is their aim, but I hope that Ministers are working closely together, representing the greatest financial centre in western Europe and perhaps the world, with that in mind. The sooner the Greek problem is solved, the sooner we can get on with sorting out some of the wider problems in the European economy.
	If it is decided to cobble together another compromise, massive headwinds against growth and prosperity in our continent will continue to blow forcefully. Will an early Greek exit be easy to handle? No, of course not. Will it be pleasant? No, of course not. But the Greek people have got to the point where they cannot take any more years of austerity, and in some way or another Greece has to be made competitive. If is it is completely impossible, as it seems to be, in a democracy to slash wages by the amount the German side of the argument seems to say the Greeks should slash wages by, other means have to be used: having a devaluation and having a new currency.
	The United Kingdom has one big advantage in thecrisis: we have our own currency, it is freely floating,and we are much closer to having competitive prices than Greece, Italy or Spain can possibly be within the euro. Any measures that my right hon. Friends can take to improve our competitiveness in order to create more export jobs, the better. How right Ministers are to see that there has to be a huge reorientation of British exports towards the emerging markets—to the faster-growing territories of Asia, Latin America and parts of Africa—because Europe is making such a comprehensive mess of its economy and its prospects. It is destroying hope and jobs on such a massive scale that our only hope as a country is to support and orient our businesses to where the growth is and where the opportunities are to be found.
	That means taking urgent action to mend our banks and to establish more competitive banking, with more money to lend to our companies, because they are going to need working capital and investment capital. They are going to need to gear up for the 2.5 billion Indian and Chinese who want to come to the world party, many of whom, I am pleased to say, will come to the world party and will be the market that replaces the European market, which is failing so visibly.
	We also need competitive energy. Surely the Secretary of State would agree, at least in private, that if we wish to lead an industrial revival in this country or anywhere else, we need cheap and competitive energy in plentiful supply. We should not be saying, “Let’s make everything in China, so it does not score against our carbon dioxide totals.” Let us make things here. If we have cheap energy, we will have more chance. Modern manufacturing creates lots of jobs in marketing, legal work and promotion. It does not create many jobs on the shop floor because it is automated, which requires access to lots of cheap energy. That is what I want this Queen’s Speech to address: cheap energy, less intensive regulations—

Frank Field: I am immensely pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames). I am sure he will forgive me if I do not develop the themes that he outlined, although I very much hope that his ideas for a corridor in the south will be taken up in the north-west as well.
	I want to make a single contribution to the debate, if I may, by stressing the effect that the Queen’s Speech has had on me and therefore, I guess, on many other people in this country. I think we will see it as a dividing line in this Parliament. Before the Queen’s Speech, I guess that many in the House and probably even more in the country wanted to give the Government the benefit of the doubt. Now, however, we begin to see that the Government are bereft on two fronts—first, on ideas about how we achieve growth; and secondly, and equally important, they seem to have no understanding of what would normally be called the art of government. It is not merely a matter of assembling Bills and pushing them through this place. It is about understanding the reaction to them outside and what response to those measures we should expect from outside. The Queen’s Speech is a dividing line in this Parliament. The jury is ceasing to be out on whether the Government have shown that they have both the ideas and the competence for good government.
	I shall concentrate on one element that I think is crucial to growth. Of course there is a discussion about how Lord Keynes’s ideas could and should be applied to the economy. There are those who emphasise the importance of reflation. I do not totally go down that route. This year the Government will be borrowing £24 for every £100 that they spend. If that is not reflation on stilts, I do not know what is. If we could conduct a séance and call Lord Keynes up now, he would not, I hope, minimise the importance of reflation, but he would draw our attention to one other aspect of what he thought was crucial at this stage of the business cycle: business confidence.
	In the period after the general election, generally speaking, businesses believed that the Government knew what they were about. They did not lay off workers to the same extent as in other recessions, but hoarded them and negotiated more flexible arrangements with them. They believed that there would be a light at the end of the tunnel and it would not be an oncoming train. The key moment when business confidence began to change was the pre-Budget report. Businesses increasingly realised that the Government did not have many ideas in the cupboard about how to deal with the size of the deficit, which was important, but do that skilfully so that we managed to engender growth.
	I think the Business Secretary, though he did not mention it in his speech today, hinted over the weekend at what the Government had hoped for in an investment-led boom. The Government’s failure could not be clearer than on that front. Business after business in this country is sitting on huge reserves of capital, waiting for some encouragement from the Government to use that capital to start an investment-led boom, which would lead to employment and increased prosperity for our country. The failure of the pre-Budget report, followed up in the Budget itself, convinced the business community that there was little point in spending those reserves. Quite what they do with them now is anybody’s guess. Until the Government come up with a strategy that convinces the business community that they can do two things at once—bring down the deficit but in a way that encourages business confidence in the future, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) said, confidence particularly in this country—it is difficult to envisage anything at all getting this economy off the bottom of the recession we are enduring.
	A Tory-led Government, who pride themselves on understanding civil society, would never have applied those VAT changes to the crucial sector of churches and historic buildings in this country. We are concerned with what goes on not only in churches, but in the surrounding area—in cathedral closes, choir schools and so on. The Government have understood nothing about how standing up at the Dispatch Box saying things can have the most deadly effect in the country on people’s hopes and expectations.
	As I said when I began, it is with sadness that I rise to say that now, in the second half of the Parliament, the jury is ceasing to be out, and it believes that the Government have neither the ideas nor the expertise in the art of government to see us through the crisis.

Lorely Burt: There is a lot of due diligence to be done so that we do not waste taxpayers’ money.
	Opposition Members might agree that we have to be fair to employers and to the work force. Liberal Democrats seek a balance to ensure that staff can achieve their full potential and have a home life as well as a work life. Unlike some in the Chamber, we are not in the pockets of the unions, but seek to work with the unions and with management to achieve fair outcomes and fair rewards. We will extend the right to request flexible working, and entitlement to parental leave will be shared. All parties bemoan the fact that we often lose female talent when the babies come along; now there will be no point in employers discriminating in recruitment against women of child-bearing age. Both men and women will be entitled to parental leave. That is one small step for equality.
	However, Liberal Democrats would say that in some areas the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of the employee. Some employees take advantage of and try to play the employment tribunal system, which has become clogged up with cases waiting to be heard, costing time and money and causing stress for all. New legislation will put a greater emphasis on conciliation and give employers longer to give underperforming employees a chance, before the spectre of the unfair dismissal tribunal looms.
	Clearing away unnecessary regulation is a big job, and we have already started. We will reform the competition regime by creating a powerful new body to enable the speedier prosecution of anti-competitive behaviour. We are also taking action on executive pay. If there is one thing that really bugs the British worker, it is seeing overpaid executives getting even more for even poorer performance, so we will give shareholders the power to exercise greater control over executive pay through binding votes.

Lorely Burt: I am sorry, but I cannot give way again.
	I think that all hon. Members are looking forward to the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, which at last offers some fairness for producers at the mercy of the
	powerful supermarkets. Then there is the Green investment bank. It has £3 billion at its disposal for investment, but Liberal Democrats would like it to have greater powers to act like a real bank, investing and borrowing as well as lending, and we are working on that.
	All that will be to no avail if we cannot sort out the biggest problem still faced by business today: access to finance. Project Merlin has had some success, with £195 billion lent by banks to business, but we need more. Liberal Democrats will be doing all we can on policies to widen the range of banks and lower the almost insurmountable barriers to entry for new banks. We want to introduce more peer-to-peer lending, such as the funding circle, and would like to examine the feasibility of community banks.
	Perhaps the most important piece of legislation of all is one that will stop a repetition of the banking crisis that resulted in the house of cards that the previous Government allowed the finance industry to build tumbling down. The Business Secretary foresaw it all: he warned Labour that light-touch regulation, over-optimistic ratios, complex financial instruments that few could understand, banks that were too big to fail and banks whose casino and retail arms were wedded would bring disaster, but not even he could have imagined the scale of the economic crisis that gripped the UK, America, Europe and large parts of the world and made them much worse off. The crisis is taking longer to sort out than anyone hoped.
	We need only look across the continent at Greece, Spain and Italy to see what would have happened had we not gripped the situation there and then. Too far, too fast? It would have been “too little too late” if the Labour party had had its way. We would be paying treble the current interest rates, with much higher unemployment and much higher bond yields, as those countries have today. We are sorting it. The little blue and yellow tractor is taking the strain and pulling us out of the mire that the Labour party helped to create.

Jonathan Evans: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) on a well constructed contribution. May I crave her indulgence? I see that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) is just leaving the Chamber, and I wish to say how much I enjoyed his contribution. I obviously did not agree with the conclusion he reached, but he gave the best critique of Government policy I have heard from the Opposition Benches. It was certainly a more constructive one than we heard from the shadow Secretary of State.
	I, too, have a registered interest to put on record, as chairman of companies that are active in the life insurance sector.
	My focus will be on the expectations that have been aroused by the proposal to introduce a new competition and markets authority, essentially merging the responsibilities and functions of the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission. My views are informed by my experience of serving in the previous Conservative Government as the UK Minister responsible for competition and consumer policy—interestingly, a role also occupied by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), who spoke earlier.
	As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I later had the advantage during my 10-year sabbatical from the House of acting as the European Parliament’s rapporteur on the modernisation of EU competition policy during the time when the whole of EU law and policy in the area underwent a significant, highly transformational experience. The key individuals driving that process were Mario Monti, the Competition Commissioner, who is now the Italian Prime Minister, and the current European Commission vice-president Neelie Kroes. From Monti’s actions in blocking the GEC-Honeywell merger through to Mrs Kroes’s effective challenge to Microsoft’s abuse of its market power, they ensured that those seeking to undermine proper competition and open markets throughout Europe had a really strong adversary.
	We all support open-market competition; it is the bedrock on which our economic growth depends. I have noted many of the positive responses to the Government’s plans for the new unitary markets authority. The plans are driven by a common view that the current processes are just too lengthy. The shadow Secretary of State’s extraordinary claim that everything was absolutely fine when Labour left office does not match the view in the market. The Government’s aim is to remove duplication and delay to streamline the system and produce a more efficient and speedier quality service, but the question is: if we cannot argue with that ambition, will it be delivered by the proposal?
	The first phase of current arrangements requires a detailed analysis at the OFT by teams of experts before a decision on whether there should be a reference to the Competition Commission. Unless these concerns can otherwise be addressed to the OFT’s satisfaction, the matter will pass to the commission itself, where a second and completely different set of experts looks at the same analysis all over again. This duplication is one of the factors that is supposed to drive a significant part of the delay, but it is my understanding that the Government’s proposal is to retain completely different teams between phases 1 and 2. It is difficult to see, therefore, how this streamlines anything or produces any efficiencies of the sort that the Secretary of State said, in response to me, he anticipated would create more resources to tackle market abuse.
	Another area of concern relates to the Government’s plan to improve the conviction rate for individuals by creating criminal offences that no longer require that dishonesty be proven. As parliamentarians, we should always be particularly cautious about the creation of new, absolute criminal offences. A wrongful act and a guilty mind lie at the heart of our criminal justice system, and we should be weary of arguments suggesting that for cases otherwise difficult to prove we need to remove the dishonesty element.
	I want the House to be in no doubt that I fully support punitive administrative financial penalties on companies that breach laws against creating cartels,
	price fixing or abusing market power. The Competition Commission often imposes fines of many millions of pounds on such companies and has taken sweeping investigative powers in such cases. Mario Monti always maintained to me that it was completely inappropriate for the European Commission to have that sort of absolute criminal law power. I cannot imagine the reaction of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who is beside me, if the Commission ever proposed taking such an absolute power. We should question strongly any proposal to do the same in this country.
	It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Government are responding to the OFT’s failure in a high-profile case involving British Airways. However, the fact that to date the OFT has never succeeded in bringing any criminal prosecution to the point of being considered by a jury leads me to the view not that the criminal law in this area is wrong but that the OFT itself might not possess the necessary resources. I hope that the creation of this new markets authority improves the landscape for open markets, but I hope, too, that the Government bear in mind my concerns.

Adrian Bailey: The figures my hon. Friend quotes are quite self-evidently a demonstration of the Government’s ridiculous priorities.
	Let me turn to the green investment bank, which was Labour’s idea. It has been talked about for a very long time by this Government and now, two years later, we actually have it. However, it is inadequate, and unfortunately the Government have already introduced a series of policies on feed-in tariffs that will decimate many of the companies that would potentially have benefitted from the Green investment bank. Again, it is difficult to see how we will lift ourselves out of recession on the back of that.
	There are certain measures that are welcome, such as the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill. However, earlier I spoke about the slowness of implementation. Both the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, which I chair, examined the issue before the last summer recess, and we did so quickly at the request of the Government. The Bill could have been implemented last autumn or at the beginning of this year. Indeed, the parliamentary business over the last three months was hardly so crowded that such a quick and simple Bill that had received so much pre-legislative scrutiny could not have been introduced. Why is it being introduced only now?

Andrew George: Given that the hon. Gentleman is the Chair of a Select Committee and will want to be seen to be even-handed in this matter, does he agree that it was a great disappointment that the previous Government failed to act on the recommendations of the Competition Commission, which reported on 30 April 2008, and implement the measure during their time of office?

Robert Syms: I support the Queen’s Speech, which I thought was very good. I have an advantage over many Members, in that I came into the House in 1997. Within a matter of hours, the then Labour Government decided to make the Bank of England independent. They also changed the regulatory regime for the whole banking system from its historic basis in which the Bank of England presided over the banks. Without consulting the Governor of the Bank of England, they created the Financial Services Authority and a whole new system. It is somewhat ironic that, a decade later, that decision played a major role in what happened during the financial collapse, because our regulatory regime was not fit for purpose.
	This Government, in contrast, have produced a draft Bill that has been widely consulted on. It has been carried over and will become legislation after hours of debate. The Bill will give back much of the regulation to the Bank of England. The proposal will have maximum transparency and scrutiny. The Queen’s Speech also contains a banking reform Bill, which is to be welcomed. We are starting to put back together a decent regulatory regime for the financial sector.
	In 2010, we formed a coalition for the simple reason that this country faced a real crisis and the biggest peacetime deficit in its history. It takes quite a lot to get Liberal Democrats and Conservatives to work together, but the previous Government managed to achieve that through their financial irresponsibility. We have faced difficulties ever since; the financial crisis has continued because of what has happened in the eurozone and worldwide. This is not an easy environment for the Government to thrive in, but they have set out a clear long-term plan. They have kept interest rates low and
	allowed the Bank of England £325 billion of quantitative easing, which is substantially more than would be possible if we were spending public money to try to push the economy. Against that background, they have created an environment in which we should be able to export more, as markets improve, and rebalance the economy. That will take time, however, and it will not be an easy role to play. Clearly, the debate for this Chamber is that if Opposition Members are right, they will win in 2015; and if we Government Members are right, the coalition parties will benefit in 2015. That, essentially, is the narrative about how things will pan out.
	The Government are doing substantial and good things in the realms of education in creating apprenticeships. The Queen’s Speech also referred to legislation on enterprise and regulatory reform. We all know that that is necessary to lighten to the burden on businesses where we can, so that they can recover.
	The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) put his finger on an important point. We have a balance-sheet recession, as banks are shrinking their balance sheets, while companies have a lot of money which they are not spending, and individuals are trying to rebalance their individual financial circumstances. The recovery will bumpy, therefore, and confidence is very important to it. In the world of 24/7 news, when one can switch on Sky or the BBC to find out about crisis talks in the Greek cabinet or what is happening elsewhere, it is difficult to engender confidence. If we hold to our proposals and our strategy, however, I think that things will eventually sort themselves out, and we will see success with higher investment, more jobs and a more prosperous economy.
	I support what the Government are doing. They are setting the environment for more growth and a more enterprising country. We should not forget that our recent Budget included a £2.5 billion tax cut for the lowest-paid workers. There is a strategy behind what the Government are doing: on the one hand, we are reforming welfare with the universal credit and a welfare cap; on the other, we are taking many of the lowest-paid workers out of the tax system. That is intended to increase incentives to work. The crucial test of us as a country is whether we can make work attractive and get more people back into it over the next few years.
	I believe that the Government are on the right track. I support what they are doing in a difficult world environment in which confidence is in short supply. It is interesting that our long-term interest rates are low and that in the current crisis, sterling is now starting to rise as this country is seen as a relatively safe haven in a very turbulent world. I am sure that if the Government stick to the course, this country will get the reward it deserves and that we all want—a prosperous and more dynamic country.

Barry Sheerman: No. I will not be given extra time if I give way again.
	Finally, let me say something about skills and management. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on management, which recently received a report from the Chartered Management Institute showing that 43% of managers in this country are not very good and 23% are awful. Whether it involves running a hospital, running Parliament, running a school or running a business such as an SME, good, skilled management is underrated in this country.
	What we needed in the Queen’s Speech was a proposal to abolish unemployment among young people for good. We should have a system like the Dutch system, under which no one under 25 is unemployed. Everyone below that age is in a job, in education or training. No one is allowed to stay at home receiving an income and doing nothing. That is the way in which to repay, for years and years, the great debt that is owed to individuals and to heal the scars that they bear, and to deal with the cost of it all to our country.
	We must do something at a time when—I do not know whether anyone has seen the figures—there are 6.9 million unemployed graduates. That means 6.9 million wasted talents, but what did the Queen’s Speech do about that? Nothing.

Esther McVey: I shall focus on executive pay, an issue that has come to dominate news headlines and political debate. The public are asking questions about what is fair, necessary and acceptable, and how we are going to address this issue.
	The High Pay Commission has revealed that over the past decade executive remuneration in the largest listed companies has increased substantially. The median total remuneration of FTSE 100 chief executive officers has risen from £1 million to £4.2 million, and the annual bonuses of directors of the FTSE 350 companies rose by 187%, while their average total earnings rose by 108%. There has been a 253.5% increase in long-term bonuses, while at the same time pre-tax profits rose by only 50.5% and share prices fell by 5.4%. That trend continued through the economic crisis. Meanwhile, the pay gap between the salaries of the senior executives of the largest UK companies doubled to over 80 times their worker’s average wage.
	These pay increases are not aligned to increases in the growth of the businesses concerned, or their profits or share price. That points to a failure of the market and a failure to uphold fair standards. As Conservatives, we believe innately in fairness and the power of market forces to do good in society. It is therefore imperative that we Conservatives correct this failing system that has been allowed to grow and go unchecked—particularly since 1998, under a decade of Labour rule. It is vital that we do that, for business and for the public, and if we want growth, jobs and a conducive environment for businesses to prosper in the UK.
	There is no doubt that we have reached a tipping point on executive pay and that such high pay rewards seem excessive, particularly when set against: a global downturn; a European sovereign debt crisis; a banking crisis, with a Government who failed to reform the banking system when they acted in 2008; staff lay-offs and redundancies; anti-capitalist protests; social mobility issues; and youth unemployment.
	Earlier this year, I met more than 200 people to discuss executive pay, and we observed various things. It is worth noting that the random cross-section of people I interviewed wanted to draw a clear distinction between those they saw as true entrepreneurs, the likes of Richard Branson, Steve Jobs and James Dyson, who had prospered because they took risks, created products and employed people, and executives of the banking system. The people I interviewed did not even have too much of a problem with footballers and their eye-watering salaries, but they perceived that banking executives were there to look after and manage companies but had failed.
	Some of the following answers therefore relate specifically to banking executives. When I asked what people’s feelings were about the pay awarded, they told me that it was “greedy” and “excessive”; they thought that the people receiving the payments were “greedy”, “removed from reality”, “distant” and “remote”. They described their emotions as “anger”, “bitterness” and “resentment”; and they felt “powerless” and that they had been “taken advantage of”.
	However, I strike a cautionary note when I talk about the banking system, because although it would appear that it was showing the worst of the excesses, the industry employs 1.1 million people in the UK and
	delivers 11% of UK tax receipts. So we need a system that will allow one of the UK’s greatest business successes to survive and prosper, and not a form of change that will deride and wither the industry, and make it move offshore.
	Interestingly, people were upset about not only the payments, but a combination of things that the banks had done. The banks had failed in a business relationship, in a stakeholder relationship and in a customer relationship. Gradually, over time, they had become remote and had moved away from the customers they were serving. They were no longer found on the high street, they were not supporting local businesses and they had become faceless entities; people were always faced with a computer decision. The banks should listen to this and alter their own business banking model without needing regulation; they should realise that they must engage, once again, with their customers.
	This is now about more than just the banks’ customers, as banks need to engage with the tax paying public. So what we have seen over the past few months, with the “shareholder spring”, is a coming of age of shareholders, where they have flexed their muscles and proved their way, bringing people such as Bob Diamond to account. We have to enforce that and pursue it, and I delivered a document to business on what I agreed that the Government were doing but on how they could go further.
	I shall end on the words of Doyle, who said that although competitive capitalism is the best way forward, it is “Darwinian in nature”, and to survive and have profitability it must adapt and change with the calls of the public.

Neil Carmichael: That is neither correct nor appropriate to my line of argument. We must ensure that the banking sector gets into the right parts of the economy. It is not merely a question of planning our overdraft extensions; it is more a question of ensuring that we have sustainable investment and can generate the right kind of investment decisions by firms. The Secretary of State, in response to an intervention, saluted the Handelsbanken and the way it operates, because it is local and bothers to find out what is really happening. I have seen it in action in my constituency, I know it works and I know that the customers who use it benefit from that local approach. That is the sort of thing we want to see in the banking sector.
	The real economy is where we will make the difference between growth and stagnation. We must get the economy going. First, we should bring engineering right up to the top. We must deal with it positively and holistically, because it has many aspects. We need the manufacturing sector to invest more in engineers and for engineers to be able to translate their products into saleable exports. We need to stitch together a policy on engineering, perhaps by creating a post of chief engineering adviser or something along those lines, so that we have some propulsion behind making improvements in that field.
	Supply chains are an issue that is often flagged up in my constituency, partly because I have raised it several times including during my festival of engineering and manufacturing, which I ran over five days to promote those fields, and partly because it is a subject on which the Government are working hard. We must understand that our companies are part of supply chains in my constituency, in this country and in Europe. It is important that we recognise that exporting is part of that supply chain process and that we give the right encouragement to firms—usually small firms—that need opportunities to develop their markets in those chains. We should help them to ensure that their products are at the top of their technological, innovative and marketing capacity. Supply chains are critical.
	It is also critical that we understand that the Government have a role in the energy sector and it is to provide the right framework for investment. Let me give the example of electricity and energy storage to make my point. We need to look towards creating a climate in which the business community thinks that it needs to invest in that and feels safe in doing so. The proposed energy Bill needs to give that comfort to firms that are thinking about not only existing technologies but new ones, and I am sure that it will. I think that those new technologies will be found in energy storage.
	Much has been said about the Green investment bank, which I welcome. The Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am a member, produced an interesting report on the subject. We were hoping for more capital early, but we recognise that there are constraints and that the Government will make informed decisions in due course. We must ensure that the people in the GIB know about the technologies, the environment and the industries involved in both, as is the case with the European Investment Bank, which draws its strength from its real expertise in the areas in which it will invest. I hope that the legislation paving the way for the Green investment bank will bring that about.
	Many Members have saluted the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill and I do, too. It will be important in dealing with problems with food produce from farms and the position of supermarkets, which are effectively a cartel because of their buying power. I hope that the adjudicator will have the necessary power, and, as the Secretary of State suggested, will be given slightly more teeth if that becomes necessary—I hope that it will not, but there is a possibility that it might.
	In summary, it is critical that we stand by our commitment to reduce the deficit. That is important for our interest rates. However, we must also recognise that there is still a lot to be done, that growth is the key, and that engineering is the method.

Nia Griffith: Let me start with a few words on the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, I which I am a keen supporter. I was a supporter of the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen). I have been concerned about the delays in legislating, so I am pleased to see the Bill in the Queen’s Speech and hope that it will not be too long before we see it going through the legislative process.
	I am concerned, however, as is the Farmers Union of Wales, that the Bill should have real powers. I want it to include the power to fine retailers for unfair practices.
	The Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills has also recommended that that power should be on the face of the Bill and should not be dependent on the Secretary of State tabling additional orders. I am also concerned that third parties, such as the National Farmers Union or the Farmers Union of Wales, should be able to report issues to the adjudicator. Those organisations are in a better position than individual farmers to see what is happening across the industry, and they are often better equipped than a hard-pressed farmer to raise an issue. There is already a new groceries supply code of practice, introduced by Labour in August 2009, but now, in the Bill, we want more powers. It would be a missed opportunity if the Bill did not include the power to fine transgressors and the power to investigate complaints made by a third party.
	Turning to parental leave, Members will remember that it was the Labour Government who first introduced paternity leave, giving fathers the opportunity to share in the excitement and responsibility that a new baby brings. I welcome the proposal in the Queen’s Speech to allow a more flexible approach which lets parents decide how to divide up parental leave between them.
	That measure will help families, but let us remember how hard families have been hit by this Government: there was the abolition of the health in pregnancy grant and the child trust fund, the closure of Sure Start centres, cuts in child care support, and the shockingly harsh changes to the tax credit system. It is families with children who will suffer from those changes—low-income families who are trying to do the right thing by going out to work. Now, if they cannot get extra hours, they could be better off on benefits. There are also the bungled proposals on child benefit; the Chancellor seems not to have worked out the effects on one-income and two-income families. The flexibility in parental leave is a very small step towards helping families compared with the many hits that families are taking from this Government.
	Turning to the regulatory reform Bill, it is easy to shout about cutting red tape but much more difficult to do it. It came as no surprise to hear the Secretary of State say today that that would be a matter for secondary legislation. We all want to lighten the burden on business, stop unnecessary form-filling, and get rid of excessive admin and box-ticking, but we do not want any erosion of workers’ rights. When we left government in 2010, the UK was considered one of the best places to do business—the best in Europe and the fourth best in the world. Our legislation on workers’ rights was no barrier to business. There was a high turnout of Labour MPs at a recent debate on a statutory instrument on employment tribunals; they came to oppose changing the qualifying period from one to two years. We shall need to scrutinise very carefully what the Government propose in their regulatory reform Bill to make sure that they do not sneak in anything that undermines workers’ rights.
	The Government must stop using rhetoric about red tape as a substitute for stimulating growth in the economy. “One in, one out” seems to have gone completely by the board. What we really need is a growth strategy. We need a clear industrial policy that creates the right conditions for companies such as Tata to continue to invest in the UK. That means much better mitigation
	measures for the high carbon floor price—a unilateral tax, imposed by the Government, with no equivalent in competitor European countries. The mitigation measures are too little, too late.
	We need a better deal on energy prices and a coherent energy policy to secure energy for the future, action to get banks lending to businesses, and a much fairer deal on tax. Cutting tax for the most highly paid while clawing back money from low and middle-income households, who are already hit proportionately harder by rocketing prices and the VAT hike, is not just unfair and heartless; it is economic madness, because those people would spend the money immediately, putting it back into the local economy and stimulating local business. At the moment, they are not able to do that; they do not have the money. They are cutting back, so local businesses are suffering and going under. Week by week, we see more of our local businesses folding.
	The Government are doing nothing to improve consumer confidence. Far from stimulating growth, they seem deliberately to be doing the opposite. We saw that with the feed-in tariffs fiasco and more recently with the caravan tax, which stifles growth, puts an extra burden on manufacturers and holiday parks, and risks job losses in coastal and rural areas, where there is very little alternative employment.
	We need a strategy to get people back to work and to give our young people work. The Welsh Government have that strategy in the form of the Welsh jobs growth fund. The idea is similar to the one that was behind the future jobs fund. We have not heard similar ideas from Government Members. We have not seen a realisation that to pay back the deficit, we need to create wealth. We should do that first, because then we will be in a position to pay back. We need a hub for business in the UK. Again, we see the Welsh Government, where they can, enabling businesses, including some of our fantastically innovative new technological industries, to expand. We need a lot more help for that sort of thing from the UK Government.
	In the Queen’s Speech, there are lots of little bits of legislation, but nothing that will deal with the real problems that people face in this country—nothing that will really get our economy going again.

Andrew George: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). She highlighted the importance of the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill in the Queen’s Speech, a measure for which I have campaigned for more than a decade, so its introduction is not before time.
	In these debates, it is quite difficult to dig below the surface of party political point-scoring and mutual blame for the situation that the country finds itself in, but if we do, we find potential for a great deal more cross-party consensus of the sort that there has been on grocery market management—or, to put it better, fair dealing in the grocery supply chain. This is a Queen’s Speech for jobs and growth, but we cannot, simply by passing a law, decree that there shall be jobs, just as one cannot decree that the sun will shine. We need to create the conditions in which a free market is regulated appropriately—hopefully as lightly as possible—to enable that process to happen.
	Regarding the groceries code adjudicator, let me set out why our current situation arose and why we need regulation. It is great that there are successful companies in this country, supermarkets foremost among them, but those who have followed what has gone on in that trade have found that, when it comes to the treatment of suppliers in the grocery supply chain, some supermarkets have moved from successfully using their market muscle to abusing it.
	There were welcome reforms to the common agricultural policy in 2003, when the Labour Government helped to decouple support from production and moved to other forms of support. That meant that the agricultural industry had to be much more market- facing, but when it looked to the market, it found the supermarkets there, beating suppliers up all the time and retrospectively changing the conditions of supply after they had been agreed. In any case, on many occasions, the contract was verbal. There were problems to do with the introduction of promotional campaigns, which suppliers found themselves paying for; there was the issue of paying for shelf space; and there was late payment of bills, as well as many other overriders in supermarkets’ treatment their suppliers. In my view, many of those problems persist.
	In 1998—the debate goes back that far—my colleague, Colin Breed, then Member of Parliament for South East Cornwall, produced a report, “Checking out the Supermarkets: Competition in Retailing”. That resulted in the Competition Commission undertaking a report in 2000 that led to the first voluntary code of practice, but that code was pretty ineffective; suppliers never used it because of the climate of fear. The most recent Competition Commission report in 2008 resulted in the commission introducing, in 2010, the groceries supply code of practice—I have to correct the hon. Member for Llanelli; it was not the previous Government but the Competition Commission that did that. We want to make sure that contracts, and the relationship between producers and supermarkets, can succeed.
	I chair the Grocery Market Action Group, which has members from the National Farmers Union, NFU Scotland, ActionAid, Friends of the Earth, and many other bodies such as the British Independent Fruit Growers Association, so I should declare an interest, though it is not a pecuniary one. It is simply part of my campaigning role to achieve the outcomes that we all want—the Bill has cross-party support.
	The GSCOP is all very well, but it is like having the rules of rugby and no referee. That is why the adjudicator is required. The message I want to get across to the supermarkets is that if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear from the proposed measure, and I urge them to embrace it. In fact, they could use it as a marketing tool that enables them to reassure their customers, who benefit from a good, healthy relationship between suppliers and retailers, that they engage in ethical, fair trading with all their suppliers.
	One of the great benefits of the grocery code adjudicator proposed by the Government is that it will help customers. The proposal to allow third-party complaints is right and the reserve powers on fining are appropriate. I urge the Government to bring in the measure as quickly as possible.

Margaret Ritchie: This is a minimalist programme for government from a Front-Bench team that has delivered little more than a double-dip recession and a spiralling cost of living, with people facing record fuel and energy prices. This is a Government who give tax cuts to the rich while punishing hard-working families. This legislative programme follows on directly from the Budget, in which the priorities of the millionaires were again put above the interests of the millions.
	We cannot underestimate the corrosive effect for a society in which the richest 1,000 individuals’ wealth amounts to £414 billion or, put another way, to more than a third of the UK’s gross domestic product. These people seem to be immune from the hardships faced in the wake of the economic crash. Indeed, their wealth has increased by £155 billion since 2008, yet this Government seem intent on delivering more handouts. We have always stood against social inequality and we stand up against the economic inequality that is accelerating under this Government. The dislocation and associated social problems brought about by such disparity are perhaps the most pressing problems that we face, and they are felt throughout our society.
	Although I commend the moves to implement the Vickers report by ring-fencing investment banks from retail banking as a step in the right direction, there is nothing here that will deal with the problem of spiralling top-level pay that the Prime Minister was apparently so adamantly opposed to only weeks ago. This is not about restricting entrepreneurialism or penalising successful business people, but about creating a fair economy that works for all in society.
	Looking at what is not included in this legislative agenda is as instructive as considering what is included. As hard-working families across Northern Ireland face up to record fuel prices and home heating costs, they may well ask where this Government’s priorities lie. One might ask where was the legislation to lower fuel prices, to restrict excessive executive pay, to promote growth and to tackle the youth unemployment that blights our society. There was nothing in the Queen’s Speech that suggested any remedy for these problems. The Government are simply sitting on their hands at a time when nearly one in five of our young people in Northern Ireland cannot find work.
	As fuel prices in Northern Ireland reach 144p for unleaded petrol and 148p for diesel, people are asking what the Government are doing to mitigate this. These are highest prices in Europe, with a standard bill of more than £70 for refilling a 50 litre tank leaving many people paying more for their fuel than for their rent or mortgage. This impacts on everyone, but it must be acknowledged that the effects are most debilitating in rural areas, with young people cut off from jobs and elderly people cut off from friends and family.
	I accept that while we are tethered to a volatile, imported commodity such as oil, we will always be susceptible to external events, but the Government could certainly do more to protect the consumer from the worst effects. The recent Centre for Economics and Business Research report showed clearly, using the Treasury’s own figures, that lowering fuel duty would create jobs, grow the economy and, most importantly, be revenue neutral. But we do not see a Government
	prepared to protect the consumer, the family, the worker or the jobseeker. Instead, we hear of a Government preparing to increase the burden of public sector workers’ pension contributions and introducing measures that will make it easier for firms to fire people.
	Although I have been critical thus far, there are certain aspects to be cautiously welcomed in the programme for government, such as the establishment of a green investment bank and the introduction of a supermarket adjudicator, but it is crucial that we scrutinise the details of these proposals to ensure that they are not merely token gestures. The green investment bank must be properly funded and accessible to firms in Northern Ireland, rather than just in the south of England. Likewise, the supermarket adjudicator must have teeth and must deliver for our local suppliers and producers to rebalance their relationship with the large supermarkets, on which they rely so heavily.
	If the Government continue down the path they have taken thus far, they will lead us to recession, not recovery. People being asked to make sacrifices and facing increasingly tough living conditions are left with the question: what is the sacrifice achieving? The pattern is clear. This is a Government who care more about what is happening on Fleet street and Threadneedle street than about what is happening on the high street in Northern Ireland.

David Evennett: I am pleased to be able to speak today in support of the Queen’s Speech, which continues this Government’s progress in their endeavours to deal with the real problems facing our country. We meet today to discuss a wide range of issues in difficult and dangerous economic times. I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills for his approach, and I am pleased to follow the logic of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms). The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) made a powerful speech, but I believe he got it wrong.
	We on the Government Benches have a strategy and proposals to deal with our economic situation. Of course we need dynamism, businesses and more jobs, and we need to get involved in markets across the world. However, I welcome the fact that this Queen’s Speech is not inundated with new Bills. Under the unlamented Labour Government, there was too much legislation, and mere legislation is not the answer. This programme has targeted legislation dealing with the real issues—for example, the enterprise Bill and the banking reform Bill, both of which are vital and helpful.
	The Queen’s Speech must be viewed as a continuation from the Speech two years ago and the recent Budget. The previous speaker, the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), was wrong in her speech. The Budget increased the income tax personal allowance to £8,105 from this April, benefiting 25 million people by up to £126 a year. That is a real achievement. Last month’s increase in the personal allowance will take 260,000 people, the lowest earners, out of income tax altogether, so the hon. Lady was quite wrong when she said that the Government were not doing anything for the majority in this country: they are.
	In particular, at the heart of the Government’s approach is the determination to get our economy back on track, growing and creating new businesses, new jobs and new opportunities. As stated in the Speech, Ministers’ first priority is to reduce the deficit, restore economic stability and focus on economic growth. That is fundamental to any Government, and this Government are committed to doing so. The legislative programme is helpful in reducing burdens on business by repealing unnecessary legislation and limiting state inspection of business. These are welcome steps.
	In addition, there are proposals to reform competition law and to promote enterprise and fair markets. I welcome the introduction of an independent adjudicator to ensure that supermarkets deal fairly and lawfully with suppliers. I strongly support measures to make parental leave more flexible so that both parents can share parenting responsibilities and balance the work and family commitment in today’s complex, challenging and demanding society. This must be a positive and welcome addition. Of course, growth, jobs, businesses, especially small businesses, are vital, but so is the families and children Bill, which will reform adoption procedures, improve and overhaul special education and give flexible parental leave, which I have already highlighted.
	I strongly support the measures for small businesses. Without doubt, the economy is the main problem facing our country, and it has consequences for all of us. We are fortunate that we did not join the euro; otherwise, things would have been far worse.

Stephen McCabe: Like a number of other Members, I doubt very much that this is a Queen’s Speech for our times. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) will be writing about its radicalism and imagination in the years to come.
	On procurement, Adam Marshall of the British Chamber of Commerce said that the Government need to realise that they are a major consumer, a maker of markets and guardian of the country’s infrastructure and skills policies. Yet this is a Queen’s Speech with nothing to offer on those issues. There is no Bill to demand that those who win large Government contracts should have to provide apprenticeship places. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), is happy that tankers will be built in South Korea, employment, industrial and economic factors will be dropped from the MOD’s value-for-money assessments, and no action will be taken to prevent a repeat of the Thameslink fiasco.
	There are no measures for jobs for young people, no actions to force energy companies to put the elderly on the lowest tariff rather than trying to bamboozle them with an array of complex charges, and no measures to tackle rip-off Britain—the hidden charges of the banks, the private landlords, the insurance industry and the airlines. They are what matter to real people—the people I listen to in my constituency of Selly Oak.
	We have heard about the regional growth fund. Almost everything that the Government have achieved to date has resulted in unemployment rising and job prospects falling, and youth unemployment being returned to that depressing picture of the ’80s, which wrecked the health and hopes of a generation. Given what the National Audit Office has told us about the regional growth fund, I strongly caution the Deputy Prime Minister to be careful about what he seeks to trumpet around the country.
	The Secretary of State managed to glide over plans to make it easier to fire rather than hire, but I remind him that it was the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who said that it would be madness to throw away employment protection in the way that is proposed, and it could be very damaging to consumer confidence.
	On banks, the Secretary of State omitted to mention that on the key issue of restructuring it will be seven years before we see the proposals fully implemented—so much for urgency. Having already sold off Northern Rock for a song, is it true that we are about to see a massive loss to taxpayers on Royal Bank of Scotland shares?
	On the groceries Bill, the Secretary of State will take reserve powers. We already have a voluntary code; we do not need more window dressing. I hope that he makes a better job of the green investment bank than the Government made on the solar energy industry, where reckless decisions wiped out 6,000 jobs and wasted the investments of many small business men, including a large number in Selly Oak.
	The Government have ducked the key social issue on long-term care for the elderly, despite promising legislation, and on parents and children I am keen to know exactly what they hope to achieve. What red tape will they scrap in relation to childminders? Will it be Criminal Records Bureau checks, restrictions on the number of children, or floor space requirements per child? That is going back, not forwards.
	I am interested in plans for parental leave. We must now be assessed as individuals for tax purposes, as families for child benefit eligibility, and we can have transferable allowances for leave. How much red tape and how many inconsistencies does this involve?
	I would like to hear more about the personal budget that the Government plan to give parents of children with special education needs. How will parents qualify, what will the budget replace, and how can we be sure it is not another gimmick to make people compete for fast-disappearing services?
	On adoption, no one wants to see children languishing in care, but I am for the child. I want a charter for children. There are plenty of older children, disabled children, children with learning difficulties, and children with severe emotional problems languishing in our care system. We need to concentrate on them as much as focus on making adoption easier for couples.
	What on earth will Boots parenting vouchers deliver? What will they cost, who will make a profit, and who will use them? It would also be helpful if the Government, given the succession of local difficulties with friendships and contracts, just came clean on the relationship of Octavius Black to the Prime Minister and other Ministers.
	This is a Queen’s Speech that confirms what the electorate know: it is a coalition that does not listen, does not care and does not have a clue.

Paul Maynard: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. My only surprise is that so far no Labour Member has proposed a law stating that two plus two should equal five, because that is the only way they could get their sums to add up for the policies they would introduce. What local firms in my constituency are asking for is better implementation of existing legislation. The  Economist stated only last week that we are the most radical Government in the west. We have introduced fundamental reforms in welfare and education, and they need time to bed in. Good governance is different from good legislation. Public administration is about implementing what is passed, not moving on to the next big item just for the sake of giving oneself something to do. That is not how to run a country properly.
	One local firm I visited only the other week is AGC Chemicals in Thornton, which makes a wonderful product called Fluon, which I had never heard of before. It is apparently very similar to Teflon. Those Members who are familiar with the Allianz arena in Munich or the Water Cube where the swimming events took place at
	the Beijing Olympics will be interested to know that the fancy cladding surrounding the stadiums is made of Fluon, which I am very proud is manufactured in my constituency. The company told me that what it needs is our existing legislation to bear fruit. It is delighted by the education reforms we are putting in place, because it needs better skilled employees and cannot find them in the local area, which is a tragedy for not only the firm, but the local people on the Fylde coast who need jobs and need to acquire those skills. That is why it is vital that we welcome what the Government are doing on apprenticeships, for example. Also, the firm should not have to look two or three hours away to get the highly skilled specialists it needs, because those people will have lengthy commutes, which puts stresses and strains on our infrastructure. That cannot be the right way to go. There must be a more local approach to skills, and that is what the Government are seeking to ensure, but that does not need a Bill or legislation; it just needs us to allow the Government to get on with the business of good governance. It is that simple.
	Let me give another example. We already have local enterprise partnerships and enterprise zones. I welcome the enterprise zone that the Government have introduced near my constituency in Warton, where BAE Systems is based, but once again that is an evolving situation. The local enterprise partnerships are barely a year old, and certainly the one in Lancashire had something of a traumatic birth—something to which other Lancashire Members in the Chamber can no doubt bear testament. Once again, local firms in my constituency are saying that they want to be certain that the local enterprise partnership is not being hobbled or constrained and that the periphery—the Fylde coast is, after all, always a periphery because it is the coast—is not neglected when decisions are made.
	In my view it is fundamentally important that as we move forward we remember the first line of the Queen’s Speech, which is that deficit reduction is at the heart of what the Government are doing. I can accept that Opposition Members might not agree with every element of the Queen’s Speech or like the general approach that the Government are taking, but I ask them to bear witness to what is happening in Athens and in France. I ask them to bear in mind the fact that we cannot make two plus two equal five, as much as they might wish us to, because two plus two will always equal four, and that has to be the basis of any sound, intellectual economic policy. We cannot keep channelling our inner Venezuelans and hoping that if we nationalise everything somehow all will be well. I realise that it is a seductive message for politicians to offer, that somehow they can offer all the gain with none of the pain, particularly when they are desperate to win elections, but the more the Labour Members go on in that manner, the more they will show that they are yet to understand fully why they lost the last election. I am quite happy for them to continue in their ignorance, for they need to look within themselves that little bit more to understand fully why they were thrown out in 2010. I was there; I remember.

Ronnie Campbell: I think that the Queen should have just carried on in her carriage and gone past Parliament and on to Windsor castle. She would have been better off, because she spent only 15 minutes here.
	I want to raise the question of the Green investment bank and the enterprise zones within it. In my constituency we asked a few months ago, at the time of the autumn statement, whether we could have an enterprise zone, because we have a big energy sector and are doing a lot of work on wind turbines and at the port of Tyne. I am a bit worried about the Green investment bank, because I do not think that it has enough. There is £1 trillion of money in the green industry. I might add that our competitors are well ahead of us; Sweden, Denmark and Germany are far in advance of us on green energy, especially wind turbines. Green investment is a road to our recovery, and I am sure that we will eventually manage it, but unfortunately, because of what we have in the Bill, it will not happen.

Lorely Burt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should give the Green investment bank more powers, and those are coming. However, the Government have made £3 billion available to the bank. How much would his party contribute to a Green investment bank, because it has not been forthcoming on that so far?

Mark Pawsey: I was pleased to see that the very first sentence of the Queen’s Speech referred explicitly to economic growth, the second sentence referred to the need to reduce the deficit, and the third sentence referred to the need to reduce the burden on business caused by regulation. All those things together show clearly that the Government’s No. 1 priority is to get
	our economy growing once again, and right now nothing is more important. I recognise that the Government have been in power for two years, and I understand the concern of people out in the country that the economic position remains difficult. However, it is important to remember the magnitude of the task that was faced by this Government when they took office in 2010 and the situation that the previous Government left us with. They had taken Britain to the brink of bankruptcy, with a structural deficit seven years before the recession began—the largest deficit in the developed world.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	I know that we have heard all this before, but it is very important that people understand that the severe state of the public finances meant that it was not possible to sort out these problems overnight.
	Looking further back, the decade starting in 1999 saw growth coming from the public sector. The public sector alone grew under the previous Government. The downside was that that led to an imbalance in the economy between the public and private sectors, creating a problem. The CBI says that the growth in the public sector in that period led to a crowding out of the private sector as the public sector accounted for a larger share of economic activity and resources. In order to rebalance our economy, it is important to look to the private sector, particularly the manufacturing sector.
	As a Member of Parliament based in the west midlands, where there is a tradition of manufacturing, I say that we must recognise just how crucial the manufacturing sector is to our economy. It is worth £120 billion a year to our economy; 55% of the UK’s exports are in manufacturing; and in that sector there are more than 2.5 million jobs. But over a number of years there has been a steady decline in manufacturing.
	Manufacturing as a proportion of the economy has almost halved, from 22% in 1997 to 12% in 2011. A key priority of this Government must be to redress that balance. How will we do that through the private sector? First, we must reduce levels of taxation, because doing so provides incentives, as people and businesses work harder to regain a greater proportion of their earnings. The UK will have the lowest rate of corporation tax in the G7 and the fourth lowest in the G20. On personal taxation, my view before the Budget was that now was not the right time to reduce the top rates of tax, and I retain that view, but it is clear that reducing the top rate of tax provides an incentive to high earners to base themselves and their businesses in the UK.
	The second method of achieving growth through the private sector is getting rid of red tape. Unnecessary bureaucracy stifles our businesses and distracts business owners from the key tasks in hand: looking after customers, finding better ways of doing things and supporting their employees to do a good job. As someone who ran a business for 25 years before arriving here, I am pleased that the Queen’s Speech will reduce the regulatory burden.
	It is true that the Government cannot create growth themselves, but they can create an environment in which businesses can thrive. A key part of the Government’s role will therefore be creating confidence. There is evidence that many companies, both large and small, have on their balance sheets the funds to expand, but are not doing so because right now they do not see a return.
	In addition to maintaining consistently low interest rates, the Government can support business in respect of exports. In my business, if we were struggling in one
	area geographically and we found a market sector that was not doing so well, we looked elsewhere. If the UK economy and businesses are not going to grow because the UK market is flat or our partners in the eurozone are having difficulty, we need to address other markets and look to those that are growing, where often there is great respect for Britain as a brand. The Government can make it easier to export by helping to reduce the risks that companies, particularly small ones, face when trading in overseas markets. In my small business, when I was trading, we would not have given a thought to exporting. We need to change that mindset. There is some evidence that that is already happening; I have heard about that when talking to small businesses in my constituency.
	UK Trade & Investment has done some great work. It supported an event run by the chamber of commerce in my constituency, bringing together advisers, bankers, linguists and others on documentation.
	I have one concern, which my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned, about a measure that may hold back growth: the Bill to give flexibility to parents with newborn children. That is welcome for families, but such provisions can be a real headache for small business owners, because when an employee is absent, the job still needs to be done. Temporary staff are expensive, often lack knowledge about the way that a company works and may not have the right skills. I do not want to give the impression that I am against the rights of mums and dads to take much-needed time off with their newborn children, but we must have some regard to the disruption caused to small businesses.
	In conclusion, the importance of the private sector, including the manufacturing sector, must not be downplayed. We need to reward success and create confidence, so that the businesses in our country can drive our economy forward.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It would be a fine thing if someone working in the public sector was able to move out of it, into the private sector. Unfortunately, under the Government’s policies towards the public sector, 500,000 people will be made unemployed and put on the dole.
	The right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) wished to see an intellectual technology hub in the south-east. My right hon. Friend the Member for
	Birkenhead (Mr Field) wanted the same in the north-west. Middlesbrough has a leading business driver, DigitalCity Tees Valley, in the heart of the town. It has a games company, a web design company and a digital education company. Young people have embarked on such digital careers enthusiastically. Many of those young people are from far away places such as Canada and France, but some were home educated at Teesside university. That is a great credit to our university. Those people are creating one of the United Kingdom’s most vibrant digital hubs, which includes digital media, digital technology and creative businesses. I, along with others, will do all that I can to encourage and facilitate DigitalCity Business to ensure that it remains a success.
	The hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) referred to the business community. Middlesbrough is working to create a business improvement district in the heart of the town, following another 126 other towns and cities that have opted for such a district. We need the votes of the business community. If those votes come, they will provide the town with a stronger retail centre, and with a more vibrant and exciting centre that will attract people from outside the area.
	Two weeks ago, the £35-million radiotherapy unit at the James Cook university hospital was opened by Princess Alexandra. The hospital is now described as one of the finest in Europe and is among Europe’s premier cancer treatment institutions.
	I am glad to see the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) in his place because, as he will know, the first vessel has now been loaded up with steel from SSI UK’s Redcar plant for shipment to Thailand, a month after the blast furnace was reopened. The first shipment from Teesside consisted of 48,000 tonnes of steel slabs with a value of £18.5 million.
	I am also glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) in his place, because Tata Steel has been awarded a major contract worth more than £100 million for its 42-inch mill, to provide gas pipelines for the gulf of Mexico. The pipelines will be manufactured and delivered in the second half of the year. Tata Steel employs more than 700 people in Hartlepool and across Teesside it has about 1,500 employees. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) referred to what Tata is doing in her constituency. The company has invested £13 million in its Teesside site this year.
	I will move on to the points in the Gracious Speech that relate to the European Union and the eurozone. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) made an eloquent and passionate speech on the future of the European Union, the eurozone and the euro, which seems like it was a long time ago. I was reminded of a phrase in the play “Julius Caesar”:
	“men may construe things after their fashion,
	Clean from the purpose of the things themselves.”
	With all the dire talk today about the European Union, the eurozone and Greece, we will have to see what happens. The right hon. Gentleman put forward the novel view that a Minister—in this case the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills—can say something privately that he will not say publicly. I doubt whether that is the case with the Secretary of State or with any Minister.
	The hon. Members for Solihull (Lorely Burt), for Stone (Mr Cash), and for Stroud and my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), who is no
	longer in his place, but who entertained the House and will entertain in tomorrow’s
	Hansard
	with his language from the north-east, talked about the European Union. The challenge for the European Union is how it can reduce deficits, create growth, and carry democracy with it. Those three elements are extraordinarily difficult.
	I raised with the Prime Minister the other day the fact that on 23 May there will be a conference of all the European Union leaders. On the table at that informal conference will be a growth compact to go alongside the fiscal compact. It will be interesting to see whether the Prime Minister signs up to the growth compact, having not signed up to the fiscal compact.
	The new President of France, who will be put into his new job tomorrow, talks of job creation and won his election on a programme of growth rather than austerity. It is an interesting thesis, and we will see how it develops in our own country. The EU is based on the stability and growth pact, and there will be a growth compact to go along with the fiscal compact. My prediction is that the EU and the eurozone will survive. The Greeks must make up their own minds—the sphinx must solve its own riddle, and so must the Greeks.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am sorry, I will not, because we are really short of time.
	Despite a few reasonable measures, the overriding sense is that the Gracious Speech delivers priorities that are out of sync with those of my constituents and the rest of the country. It was more notable for what was left out than for what was included. The first line promised that the legislative programme would focus on
	“economic growth, justice and constitutional reform”,
	but in fact there was a complete lack of legislation to boost the economy in the north-east or anywhere else, or to address the concerns of people in my constituency and the region as a whole.
	We need a plan for jobs and growth. The north-east has the highest unemployment rate in the country, with 11.6% of people of working age being without a job. Particularly worrying is the number of unemployed 16 to 24-year-olds. In County Durham, 8.6% of people in that age group are claiming benefits, and in my constituency long-term youth unemployment is up by a massive 129% on this time last year. Without strong Government action, we risk creating a generation of young people who will never experience stable employment and an economy that will take a worryingly long time to recover. It is no wonder then that business has slammed the content of the Queen’s Speech. This March, an Experian report showed that County Durham was in the top 20 areas for export potential and that businesses in the north-east, the north-west and the Yorkshire and Humber—the areas most likely to be hit by this new made-in-Downing-street recession—are doing the most to drive export growth.
	Improving our infrastructure and links between the north and south is vital not only for the regions but for the British economy as a whole. Areas such as Durham are key to our international competitiveness and long-term economic success. It is therefore essential that I ask why so little Government attention has been paid to improving infrastructure in the north-east. The Government talk a lot about supporting manufacturing but where are the policies to back it up? The only thing that this coalition has manufactured is the double-dip recession. The recent welcome investment programmes in the north-east by Hitachi and Nissan were actually started under the previous Labour Government.
	We saw last week that the regional growth fund is expected to deliver only 41,000 jobs—well below the 500,000 claimed by the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg). What is more, those jobs cost an average of £33,000 each to create, compared with the £6,500 average under Labour’s future jobs fund. The shambles is partly due to the Government’s decision to do away with regional development agencies, which promoted and defended the interests of the regions, as One North East did so well. In particular, they should not have got rid of the RDAs without putting in place a viable alternative.
	The loss of One North East has been keenly felt across the region. For instance, the announcement recently that more than 300 jobs will move to Ireland following the closure of the Kerry foods factory in my constituency is a disaster for many of my constituents, but it is only one of several closures of food processing factories in the north-east this year alone. There is no regional body to pick up this issue, to think about what can be done to improve the competitiveness of the food processing sector and, critically, to maintain and grow these jobs in the north-east, so we are seeing the loss of private sector jobs in addition to the huge loss of public sector jobs
	There is no strategy either for innovation. One North East put universities at the heart of its plan for growing the north-east economy, and we needed that innovation, but it is now extremely difficult for universities to engage with economic development because of the fragmentation: we have two local enterprise partnerships, two enterprise zones, 12 local authorities, the regional growth fund, “BIS local” and further bids in several constituencies. As a result, there is no clear way for universities to engage. The Government would say that they created LEPs to take on that role, but in practice local government is bearing the brunt of the austerity measures, which means that it simply does not have the resources to create the much needed jobs in my area and elsewhere.

Anne-Marie Morris: I join colleagues in welcoming the Queen’s Speech, much of which sets a good legislative reform agenda to help businesses, particularly small ones.
	I shall focus on the enterprise and regulatory reform Bill and the banking reform Bill, because they are probably the proposals that will make the most difference. If we speak to any business, particularly a small business, the key points we hear are that they are over-regulated—that includes employment regulation—and that they struggle to access finance. When considering regulation, the Government need to understand what is meant by “enterprise”. That term encompasses not just large enterprises—Sainsbury, Tesco and the like—but the very smallest. Businesses with fewer than five employees represent 90% of businesses in this country, so when considering how to make the regulatory burden lighter, it is critical to bear in mind the size of the business trying to cope with this problem. On finance, I am delighted that we are considering a banking reform Bill and dividing retail and investment banking, but in time I would like the Government also to address access to non-banking finance, because inevitably there will always be a limit to what the banks can do.
	To focus on regulation, the Government have specified—or rather the Queen did, in her speech—that the review of employment legislation will look at when things go wrong. It will also consider how to ease dispute resolution, no-fault compensation and how to ease the tribunal process. For that complex and adversarial process to be delayed for two years would be a good thing. However, I urge the Government also to review the damages that can be awarded by a tribunal. At the moment, tribunals are not constrained by the ability of the defaulting employer to pay, and in some cases the damages awarded take the business out. I also urge the Government to consider the complexity of the legislation on taking on, paying and training employees, because that is additionally burdensome. They could also look
	into the problems of the self-employed, many of whom do not benefit from schemes of the sort that are available to help those in employment.
	In their initiatives to deal with unnecessary legislation and the red tape challenge, the Government have done a good job. They have identified 600 rules and regulations that they will remove or reform, and are looking at 11 sectors and six themes. I welcome that. If there was one thing they could do better, however, it would be to make it easier for small businesses to contribute to the process. If someone goes on to the website to make a contribution to the red tape challenge, they have to identify the regulation causing the problem, but many small businesses do not know the name of the legislation or regulation; they just know what its consequence is. If we can reform how the Government collect such information, it might make more contributions more successful.
	The Government have done good work, but I advise them to add another theme to their red tape challenge: the challenges facing small businesses from cradle to grave—from set-up through taking on that first employer to importing and exporting. There is currently no prospect of that dimension being reviewed. There is a review of company regulation, but, importantly, not all businesses incorporate.
	There has been mention of the very smallest—the micro—businesses. I welcome what the Government have done to exclude micros from new regulation, but we really need a root-and-branch review of regulation already impacting on the micros. In future, I urge the Government to consider not simply delaying the introduction of the application of new regulation, but exempting the micros. The argument is that if we start to exempt the micros, we will have two classes of business, but I do not agree. There is always a way to bridge the gap and incentivise businesses to grow. I urge the Government to look at that.
	In sum, this is a good Queen’s Speech. It offers a lot for business, but the Government must be mindful of the very smallest of businesses in assessing the impact of what they are doing.

Catherine McKinnell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), who made a thoughtful and considered speech. However, I must say that I disagreed with pretty much all of it.
	The disappointment following Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech was tangible and widespread—“Is that it?” crossed most people’s minds. We are in a double-dip recession—the deepest since the 1930s—our living standards are declining with every day that passes, and there is little hope of growth and no confidence that things will get better any time soon, and the Government’s solution is to make it easier to sack people. It is quite astonishing, even from this Government. There was also a claim that the Government would
	“strive to improve the lives of children and families.”
	I consider that to be a worthy but dubious commitment, when we consider how out of touch this Government seem to be with the impact that their economic policies are having on households, and particularly on women and children up and down the country.
	Let us put the Government’s proposals in context. There has been zero economic growth over the last year, and the economy is now smaller than it was in 2010. Living standards are being squeezed to breaking point. Families are being forced to choose between petrol and new school shoes, or between a pack of ham for their children’s sandwiches and making do, for another week, with cheese spread—and those are the fortunate ones. Mums—and, I appreciate, some dads, but let us be honest: it is mostly mums—who were just managing to juggle work and child care, with the help of much needed child tax credits, are now having to give up work, as they are unable to secure an additional eight hours a week, at a time when most employers simply are not recruiting. Consumer spending is inevitably held back, with families deciding to forgo their summer holiday or make their child do with last year’s raincoat—no one will notice the three-quarter-length sleeves. All this is compounding the downward economic spiral. Young people reaching school leaving age are choosing not to go on to university, and that goes even for those with straight As. They see a lifetime of debt and a very uncertain job market. That is what some of the brightest young people in my constituency have been saying to me. We are facing an historic loss of confidence in Britain’s economic future, and young people are not living in a bubble. They fear for the future as much as we do.
	Where are the solutions? I do not agree that making it easier to sack people will get our economy growing. Before being elected to this House I practised as an employment lawyer. I advised claimants and employers, individuals and businesses, and I assisted in the running of a small business with my husband. I am therefore in a better position than many to comment on the trials and tribulations of employment legislation. Yes, it can be complicated; and, yes, it is sometimes tricky to navigate. However, it is there to ensure fairness and protect against exploitation. I was horrified by the Government’s recent decision to increase the qualifying period for claiming unfair dismissal from 12 months to two years. Why would a Government support—or worse, encourage—employers to sack people unfairly? The clue is in the title. It is not difficult to terminate a person’s employment where the reason falls into one of the categories for a fair dismissal. Why should employers be encouraged to circumvent the basic principles of fairness? It is simply an excuse for poor management. Before the banking crisis we had one of the lowest rates of unemployment in decades. The 12-month qualifying period proved no obstacle to major economic growth in the last 13 years. How can it be used as an excuse for failing growth figures now?
	I accept that managing a work force is one of the biggest challenges that any employer will face. I also know that the majority of businesses want to get it right and do the right thing. The success of any business is only as secure as the people employed in it. Economic growth cannot be built on greater uncertainty in the work force. Making it easier to sack people and harder to seek redress for unfair treatment will only make people feel more insecure. The answer has to be ensuring that businesses get the support they need to manage their work forces fairly and well. Employment legislation is focused on just that: ensuring that businesses and employees use procedures that are fair. Instead of focusing on making it easier to sack people, this Government
	should focus on enabling businesses to get the help, support and advice they need. Yet all we see are business advice support services disappearing from view.
	There is, in any event, no economic justification for the assertion that employment protection rights form any barrier to growth. According to the World Bank’s “Doing business” ratings, the UK ranks seventh in the world for ease of operating out of 183 countries. The OECD’s employment protection index provides a measure of the procedures and costs involved in dismissing and hiring employees. On this index the UK ranks third out of the 21 major economies, behind only Canada and the US. To claim that our inability to sack people on a whim is holding our economy back is a poor excuse for this Government’s economic failure and an even poorer solution. Creating uncertainty and fear among an already financially stretched and insecure work force will only compound our economic problems by exacerbating the lack of consumer confidence.
	Businesses are crying out for funding and investment. The Federation of Small Businesses cites the lack of consumer demand as the biggest barrier to growth, with access to finance just behind it. No business is going to say, “No thank you,” to an offer to make it easier to sack people, but it is not the priority that businesses are looking for. “Work hard and stop complaining,” the Government say. I say, “Start listening.”

Chris Evans: If there were a parliamentary award for the most bizarre speech of the day, I am sure that the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) would earn it. We have heard that the happy days are around the corner. We have double-dip recession, but it is okay, because it was all Labour’s fault, even though the economy was growing when Labour left power. Apparently, 1 million young people unemployed is good news. Wonderful! That is not the only thing we have heard; we have also been told that stripping people of their employment rights is the way forward. Is it not funny that when they have blamed everything else, they start blaming employment rights for our problems.
	I say that the major aim of a Government of any colour should be to make this country the best place to start and grow a business. Yes, I agree that a cut in corporation tax is a good way forward. I believe that cutting red tape is a good idea, too, and I look forward to seeing more concrete proposals over this Parliament. When red tape is tackled, I hope that the Government will start to talk about tax reform. When I speak to anybody who is hoping to set up their own business, they tell me that the main barrier they face is the fear of the complex tax system that they will have to tackle. It seems strange, but the more complicated the tax system, the more there is only one winner. It is not the small business man; it is the accountant. It seems odd that small businesses have to spend time form filling when they could be chasing orders. We need to realise that, however good the Government believe they are, it is ultimately people who make businesses successful.
	Talking of people, and young people in particular, we are now operating in a globalised economy. Young people in Wales will not be competing with young people from the north-east, the south-west, Scotland or Ireland; they will be competing with the Chinese, Indians and Brazilians. That is why our competitive edge is all about creating a highly skilled and highly motivated work force.
	I have two friends—[Interruption.]Yes, I have only two friends; I would only have to borrow 20p and I could phone them both. The two friends in question work in the training industry. One works in further education; the other works for a training company. Both come from the old school, where it was said that
	an apprenticeship lasted four years. What they tell me worries me. My friend in FE says that some FE colleges are subcontracting training contracts to training companies, offering so-called apprenticeships that are supposed to last for three years, but saying that people can become a qualified electrician in a year. Courses that should take three years are being done in three months. All the while, people are driving around in their high-performance Mercedes and Aston Martins—no doubt bought out of the money that they should be investing in young people. This scandal is already going on, as we saw in a BBC “Panorama” programme. It should be seriously investigated, because this seems to me to be a misuse of the word “apprenticeship”.
	The word “apprentice” conjures up images of the ’60s and ’70s and of young people between the age of 16 and 21 doing full-time apprenticeships and coming out as draftsmen, toolmakers or even, for the lucky few who aspired to it, with a footballing career. The problem is that people are being called apprentices nowadays when they are nothing of the sort. Why is it that of all the apprentices in this country, one in 10 is based in the supermarket Morrisons? Are they apprentices when they are working in retail? What skills are they getting? What trade are they developing?

Chris Evans: What I would say is that that is not an apprenticeship in the traditional sense. I believe that the word “apprentice” is being misused. All that is happening is that apprenticeships are taking the place of the youth training schemes that failed in the 1980s.
	This is the main point that I want to make. We must formalise the process that apprentices undergo. In the 1960s a UK training industry board formalised the apprentice system, producing produced training manuals and setting the standard for what apprenticeships should be. Now the definition is so muddled that we do not know what apprenticeships actually are, and that is why we must take serious action now. Recently I went to Pensord, in my constituency, where Pensord Press has launched a major apprenticeship scheme. I fear that good schemes like that will be mixed up in the scandal of our not knowing what “apprenticeships” means.
	When I speak to people who take on apprentices, they tell me that they meet young people who do not have the necessary skills. They do not turn up on time, they play with their mobile phones during interviews, or they do not know how to speak to people; sometimes they swear in ordinary conversation. That worries me. I could talk for a long time about it. We need to hold a serious debate in this country about how business and education can work together.
	I visited Cwmcarn high school when I worked for my predecessor, and it was launching what was described as a basic skills passport. All the children in the school would be assessed for literacy, numeracy, performance and public speaking, so that when they were interviewed by employers, they would be able to say “These are my skills: this is what I have achieved during my time at school.” It is a good scheme, and it should be rolled out throughout the country.
	Last Friday I went for a chat with people at the University of Wales, Newport, who talked of universities’ becoming hothouses for businesses. I have always said that we have massive academic resources in research, and that we should open up the universities for that purpose. Those people talked to me about the concept of an entrepreneurial university, drawing a parallel with teaching hospitals where the practitioners are lecturers and students must undergo internships as part of their qualifications. That could be applied to skills in areas such as computing, engineering and business. I do not know whether anyone has watched the documentary about Ayrton Senna, but that was done by a student at the university, or the BBC programme “Rhod Gilbert’s Work Experience”, produced by a company called Zipline Creative— another company formed by some of its graduates. We need to have that debate about business and education.
	I prepared a longer speech, but I have only 30 seconds left, so let me say just one more thing. We must be very careful when we talk about employment rights. I was a trade union official, and I do not think that we should clamp down on people who go to tribunals with trade union representatives. It is hard enough already for someone, even with a strong case, to undergo the grievance procedure. If we take the vital right to union representation away from people we will cause trouble, and we will do nothing for competitiveness in this country.

Lilian Greenwood: I want to speak about my constituents’ priorities, which are unfortunately not addressed in the Queen’s Speech.
	Nottingham city council and NHS Nottingham City jointly commission the Nottingham citizens survey, an annual survey of city residents which gathers views on a variety of subjects including the things that make people believe that Nottingham is a good place in which to live—such as its excellent public transport system and NHS services—and the improvements that are most needed, which include more crime-cutting, the provision of more activities for teenagers, and better job prospects for residents.
	It is interesting to note that job creation made it into the top five items only this year, but it is hardly surprising. Thanks to the Government’s failed economic strategy, the UK is now experiencing a double-dip recession. More than 2.6 million people are out of work, 3,500 of my constituents are stuck on out-of-work benefits, and long-term youth unemployment in my constituency has risen by 133% in the last 12 months. Sadly, the Government will not address those priorities over the coming year.
	At a time when my constituents want to feel safer in their homes and on the streets, the Government are continuing to cut funding for our police force. Last week, like many other Members, I met police officers who had come to protest about the Government’s plans. All those officers—from neighbourhood policing teams, from our city centre response team, and from intelligence and surveillance units—had front-line roles, and they had a simple message to deliver. They described the cuts as catastrophic, and told me that they no longer had the resources with which to do their job properly. How can our police forces continue to cut crime if they do not have the resources that they need?
	Opportunities for young people are also a cause for concern among my constituents. That is not surprising, given cuts in youth services, the loss of work experience opportunities and careers guidance, the scrapping of the education maintenance allowance, the tripling of tuition fees, the undermining of vocational qualifications, and the sharp rise in youth unemployment. What hope does the Queen’s Speech offer young people in my constituency? None.
	I recently attended a round table at Nottingham Forest football club with business leaders and representatives of the voluntary sector and local councils to discuss skills and opportunities for young people. While there was a real collective will to work together in our city to give young people a hand up, there was also frustration about the Government’s failure to provide the support that would enable them to get on, help them to gain the skills that they needed, and create the economic conditions that would provide jobs for them to do.
	As for the need for boost business and create jobs, what does the Queen’s Speech offer? Nothing. When the Government talk of reforming employment rights, they mean making it easier to sack people. At a time when families are already facing a cost-of-living crisis and consumer confidence is at its lowest level for a generation, creating further insecurity is exactly the wrong thing to do. It was not the UK’s system of employment law that sent our economy into recession; it was the Government’s decision to cut public spending too far and too fast. It is this Government’s choices that have landed hundreds of people in my constituency on the dole; it has been this Government’s choice to freeze wages, and now to threaten cuts to real incomes in the public sector by hiking up pension contributions and introducing regional pay; and it is this Government who have raised VAT to 20%, allowed train companies to hike up rail fares and cut support for the bus industry, leading to fare rises, all taking money out of my constituents’ pockets and undermining the retail sector, which is so important to Nottingham’s local economy.
	So what have the Government done? Well, Nottingham has an enterprise zone, but it has still to deliver a single new job. We have yet to receive a penny from the regional growth fund, and the Government have scrapped our successful regional development agency. No wonder businesses have slammed the Queen’s Speech for failing to offer an industrial strategy or real measures to boost growth, and we are still waiting for the Government’s previous measures to make the slightest bit of difference.
	So here are some questions that people in Nottingham would like the Minister to answer. How will the Government’s programmes support our city’s economic growth plan? How will they ensure that young people in Nottingham have real opportunities to obtain skills and jobs? How will the Government help boost investment in our city’s vital retail sector? How will they ensure our enterprise zone actually delivers new jobs? How will they support the growth sectors in our city’s economy—health and life sciences, digital content and low carbon—to help us attract high-skill jobs in the future? Will the Minister’s Government support investment in the midland main line for both line speed improvements and electrification? Will he ensure that Nottingham benefits from the improved connectivity offered by high-speed
	rail? Will he support the development of high-speed broadband, which is needed to boost our digital media sector? Finally, will he listen to the views of Nottingham citizens, and prioritise the needs of the many people I represent who are suffering the effects of a recession made in Downing street and this Government’s other disastrous policy choices?

Barry Gardiner: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Having spent the afternoon cutting my speech, I shall now have to cross out all the omissions—but, seriously, I am delighted by your ruling.
	If asked to identify what is most surprising about the Queen’s Speech, I would have to say it is finding that this Government consider it a priority to remove the rights of ordinary working people and to make it easier to fire people—and not just to fire people, but to fire them unfairly. We have 2.7 million people unemployed, we have a double-dip recession—the first in 37 years—and we see this Government putting through legislation to make people more insecure. How does that build confidence in our economy? How does that serve to increase productivity? It does not.
	That is just one part of the injustice that lies at the heart of this Queen’s Speech—which explains why so many Opposition Members have spoken about it. It is not just an unforeseen consequence, and it is not proposed merely in the mistaken belief that it will get the economy going. We recognise this for what it is: a deliberate political philosophy. It is a deliberate attack on the rights of working people, and I have to say that while one would expect that from the Conservatives, the fact that the Liberal Democrats have colluded in it in quite the way that they have is to their eternal disgrace. I hope working people will punish them accordingly.
	The director general of the CBI identified a different test by which to judge this Queen’s Speech: whether it will help business to grow. He mentioned the energy Bill and the regulatory reform Bill. While he said he did not have much confidence in the regulatory reform Bill, he said he thought there was a chance that the Energy Bill might help in this regard. I wish that were the case, but I fear Mr Cridland has let his optimism get the better of his customary forensic analysis. We have been promised sight of a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny on 22 May —or, to be more precise, we were promised it for 20 minutes on the Department of Energy and Climate Change website on the afternoon of the Queen’s Speech, but then the commitment to the 22 May was taken down. Will the Minister responding to the debate tell the House whether, and when, that Bill will be published in draft form?
	The Government’s draft Bill to reform the electricity market to deliver “secure, clean and affordable” energy will need to go a great deal further than the current four pillars set out by the Department. The Government are
	not prepared to introduce real competition into the electricity markets, because they do not dare break up the vertical integration of the wholesale and retail elements of the big six electricity companies as they fear losing the investment they so desperately need to replace the 25% of existing energy generation that will go off stream by 2020. Some £200 billion of investment is required in the energy sector and the price of that investment, in the Government’s mind, is a quiescent Government, cowering in the face of the big six and unwilling to regulate to open up the market to the competition and the free market forces that they say they believe in. The effect will be higher costs for small and medium-sized businesses and, of course, for domestic consumers.
	The energy crisis facing this country will do more to undermine prosperity than anything else in the next 10 years, except perhaps the impact of the death throes of the eurozone. I am not a traditional fan of the speeches of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), but today they rightly pointed out the effect on the UK of the shrinking of the European economy. It is worth reflecting on the fact that although the total amount of Greek debt owned by UK banks and the UK Government together is an eye-watering €14.2 billion, the French Government alone hold €15 billion of this debt and French banks hold a catastrophic €42 billion, giving France a €57 billion exposure. We now have a French President calling for a growth package to go alongside the financial stability and austerity measures agreed by the 25. France needs Germany and the European Central Bank to fund an ever-expanding Greek bail-out to stop the implosion of French banks. Simultaneously, France needs Germany and the ECB to provide liquidity to stimulate the growth that the new President has made his political priority. Does any Government Member seriously believe that EDF, a company owned by the French Government, will not be under Gallic pressure to invest in its home market in preference to the UK and that that will not have a dramatic impact on the investment capacity and potential in the UK over the next five years?
	Only two out of the big six—Centrica and Scottish and Southern—have the UK as their primary investment focus, and what all of them look for is a clarity of purpose and a stability of regulatory regime that creates the right investment climate for long-term energy investments to achieve their expected return. This Government, in just two years, have spectacularly undermined business investors’ confidence. With the carbon reduction commitment, the Government retrospectively snatched £1 billion from business. With the North sea tax regime changes, they sent shock waves throughout not just the big oil companies, but the whole investor market. Of course, with the solar photovoltaic feed-in tariff, the Government became a laughing stock for investors. But the laughter will stop as the desperate truth sinks in that business no longer regards the UK as a stable investment regime, and the UK courts have compounded that by ruling against the Government on these issues.
	That is what is going to undermine the possibility of growth in this economy: the lack of business investment in the energy markets and the way in which generation capacity will go off stream after 2017, with businesses then not just paying more for their power, but not being able to get it. That will be because this Government are failing the absolute cast-iron test of putting through
	real structural reform in the energy market. That is what business has called for, that is what business knows it is not getting and that is why business has condemned this Government for a weak and feeble Queen’s Speech.

Sheila Gilmore: I start by repeating something that I raised in an intervention with the Secretary of State at the outset. He repeated the oft-made claim about the number of private sector
	jobs that are being created in order to prove that the Government’s policy is working. In about January 2011, after just over six months in government, the Prime Minister told us that 500,000 new private sector jobs had been created by his Government. After another few months, he said that in the first year of his Government they had created 500,000 jobs. Now the Secretary of State tells us that in two years they have created 600,000 jobs. Presumably, if the 500,000 figure was correct in the first place, only 100,000 have been created in the last 18 months. At that rate of job creation, we will expect the next 18 months to give us about another 20,000 jobs. They cannot keep repeating the same jobs. The key fact here is that that 500,000, the Prime Minister’s original boast, was largely the result of the economic stimuli applied by the outgoing Labour Government. In other words, this Government have done virtually nothing to create private sector jobs, despite all their claims—claims that were repeated again today—that the public sector was crowding out the private sector and that was the problem.
	I am not, on the whole, the kind of person who goes in for the Armageddon-like language that one sometimes hears on the left. In fact, I am usually irritated by it; language such as, “We are all going to hell in a handbasket” and “People will be walking in the streets without shoes.” Actually, I am beginning to wonder. At my surgery on Friday, two people came who had both been recently sanctioned as a result of disputed issues about non-attendance at the Work programme. Neither qualified for hardship payments because they do not have dependants. The only thing their local citizens advice bureau could tell them to do in the short term was to go to a food bank.
	I did some research on food banks. The Trussell Trust, which many talk about as being a wonderful charity, on its website says that in 2011-12 food banks fed 128,687 people nationwide—100% more than in the previous year. It has more than 200 food banks nationally and it hopes to have one in every town. I do not think I am overly naive, but in my lifetime I thought that this sort of thing was history. I represented an area as a councillor for 16 years, which included a district that ticked all the deprivation indices boxes, and I do not recall a constituent telling me that they had had to resort to a food bank. The only food provision that I was aware of in Edinburgh then was some vans for the street homeless, but not for people who had simply found themselves unemployed.
	It must give us food for thought that one of the most rapidly growing charities in our country is one providing food banks. That is not a criticism of the charity or those who volunteer for it; I am sure that they are doing an important job, which is obviously necessary. But what should make us angry, is that there is a need for that.

Ian Lavery: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is always a privilege to speak in a debate when you are fiftieth out of fifty Members, having rewritten your speech four times, for three minutes, five
	minutes, eight minutes and then 10 minutes, which is absolutely fabulous, and having listened to the discussions and heard everything you wanted to say and every punchline in your speech used by other people. I think that is called parliamentary democracy.
	The country was desperate for a Queen’s Speech last week that included a boost for jobs and a boost for growth. It was interesting to see the Government come forward with a plan B at the weekend, subsection (1) of which tells businesses and hard-working people to stop whinging and get on with it, and subsection (2) explains to them that if they do not do so the Government will change workers’ protections at work and sack them. That is the change of direction we got from the Government.
	The coalition Government’s proposals outlined in the Queen’s Speech do nothing to help my constituents, particularly those looking for work, the ordinary families who are already suffering and having their living standards squeezed, and the huge number of mainly small and medium-sized enterprises and businesses that are struggling even to survive, never mind expand.
	In my constituency, which was already experiencing extremely high levels of joblessness and deprivation, we have recently experienced another hammer blow, with the forthcoming closure of Rio Tinto Alcan, the largest private sector employer in Northumberland. That has been followed by announcements involving a number of small and medium-sized enterprises, including Remploy.
	Remploy factories were set up after the second world war to look after disabled people and to ensure that they could work in a particular environment and do meaningful work, but now we are looking at the closure of 54 such factories throughout the country. It is an absolute outrage that in 2012 we are about to put more than 2,500 disabled people on the dole. If anybody dares to suggest that it is the best thing for them, they had better have asked the individuals involved. I meet them regularly, and believe me, they have no future in terms of employment in this country.
	The closure of Rio Tinto will have a massive and devastating impact on south-east Northumberland and what can only be described as an already fragile economy. Some 3,250 jobs will probably be lost, including 650 direct high-quality jobs and 2,600 in the supply chain. As I have said before, those are highly paid private sector jobs in an area that has already been hammered by the Government’s public sector job cuts. There will be a loss to the economy of £120 million on 2007 prices, including £60 million in the immediate vicinity of the plant. There will be an extra cost to the state of £10 million per annum in terms of state benefits and the loss of business rates.
	Mr Deputy Speaker, you and many in the Chamber will have heard the saying, “It’s the economics of the madhouse,” and here we see it once again. The loss of the largest private sector company in Northumberland will be felt sharply by coalfield areas in my constituency. Of working-age adults in my constituency, 28%—one in five—are in receipt of out-of-work benefits; that is almost three times the national average. One in three children aged four or under is living in poverty. This is 2012. Those figures are absolutely damning of any Government. Let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am ashamed to be a politician when one in three children under the age of four do not have enough even to feed their bellies to go to school. It is an absolute outrage.

Stella Creasy: I was very challenged earlier when I heard the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard)—I am sad that he is not here—demeaning the contributions of Labour Members by saying that we thought that this was a “state of the nation” debate rather than a debate on the Queen’s Speech. That struck me as a powerful example of the strong differences between Labour Members and Government Members when looking at our country. While Government Members believe that we are just
	bystanders to the crises that are unfolding across kitchen tables, in businesses and in our economies at local and national level, Labour Members believe in action. That is why we hear this Queen’s Speech and ask, “What is it doing to act on the central crisis that we now face in our economy?”
	We are in a double-dip recession for the first time since 1975. Our economy, which was recovering, has slumped backwards—not by accident, but by design. What is more, there is no end in sight—no happiness to come for our constituents, who are struggling in these difficult economic times. The most optimistic pundits say that we might get growth of about 0.4 %, but the majority are gloomy, with some even saying that the economy will continue to contract. In 2010, this Government inherited an economy that was growing, thanks to an active Government who were seeking consciously and purposefully to intervene to make sure that this country pulled through the economic times we were living in—a Government who invested in our infrastructure and, yes, used temporary tax cuts and looked at how they could grow the economy. What a contrast!
	That is the context in which we judge this Queen’s Speech, because two years on, things are getting worse, not better, for our constituents and for our country. A range of factors have been blamed for that situation, whether it be snow or the royal wedding; this afternoon I even heard that television was the problem. It is as though the Government cannot see what is staring them in the face—the fact that the impact of the decisions that they have made and the way in which they are dealing with the deficit has exacerbated the situation.
	Whether it is about the future jobs fund, which they have had to reinstate because it is bad value for money to have nearly 1 million young people out of work, or the fact that only 30% of the cuts have taken place so far, which means that the problems are going to continue, they simply do not get “it”. “It” is a very simple issue—the crippling lack of confidence that consumers and businesses are now experiencing. I have spoken at length in this House about consumer confidence and my concerns about how consumers are behaving in the present economic situation. That is why tonight I want to talk about businesses, which cite the lack of consumer demand as the biggest barrier to growth.
	Many hon. Members have talked tonight about the problems in our economy as a result of firms sitting on £750 billion worth of cash and deposits. They are not investing because they have no confidence in this Government and how they are managing the economy. All the prophecies about austerity have become real, because everybody is shutting up shop, such is the uncertainty. Businesses themselves say, “We will continue to be on the critical list until companies get their chequebooks out.” That is the problem that Britain faces and this Queen’s Speech should be addressing it.
	As all hon. Members have mentioned, John Cridland, the director of the CBI, said that he wanted a Queen’s Speech to help businesses grow and create the jobs that we all want. Even the Secretary of State himself admitted that we needed a compelling vision, for our economy and for the future, that we could all fight for, but there has to be more to drive economic growth in this country than hope that the Olympics or the jubilee might do it. It is striking that the contrast between a bystander Government and an active Government is shown in the
	concept of growth. The previous Government had Ministers dedicated to a plan for growth, but it has taken this Government two years to get round to a growth plan, and what do we see? It is small beer and not the kind of thing that will challenge the £750 billion sitting there waiting, not being used. That is why businesses have been so disappointed.
	Let me mention just one example. The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) spoke passionately about our green economy—a massive growth industrythat in 2009-10 was worth £116 billion. We were sixth in the global economy in this regard, but where are we now? What has happened to our green economy? What does the Green investment bank really offer? It offers little to change the situation, let alone solve the problems caused by cutting off the solar panels tariff.
	Yes, there are good things in the Queen’s Speech, including measures on parental leave and shareholders’ rights, but they are not the drivers of growth that we need. We need something stronger. Many hon. Members from all parties have made many serious points about things that we could do to drive growth, so let me offer some ideas that have not yet been talked about.
	First, this Government need to learn from America and Germany and create a state investment bank that could lead to businesses having the cash they so desperately need. This would not be one of my speeches if I did not talk about credit and the problems caused by a lack of credit or by expensive credit. Those problems are now affecting businesses, too. There is no more damning indictment of this Government’s failure to manage our economy and support businesses than the fact that the legal loan sharks have stepped into the breach. Ministers should be ashamed that Wonga sees a business opportunity in the failure of Project Merlin. This Government could have used the Queen’s Speech to correct that. They could have intervened and set up a state investment bank—22% of small businesses say that access to finance is also causing them problems—but they did not do so.

Rachel Reeves: I am sure that businesses welcome the fact that sterling has depreciated, which has made it easier to export, but that is because of the Bank of England’s decision to cut interest rates, under the last Government, and quantitative easing, also under the last Government.
	We have seen another example of how out of touch Government Members seem to be with the reality facing businesses, families and young people. School leavers and graduates are filling out dozens of job applications week after week—should they be working harder? Millions of people who would work extra hours if the work was available; families feeling more squeezed by the month, worried sick about how to make ends meet—is it their fault that we are back in recession? Should they be working harder?
	Let us remind ourselves—for the Government seem to be in denial—that the backdrop to this debate is the first double-dip recession that the UK has experienced
	in 37 years, an outcome that the Government assured us would not happen. However, less than two years after boasting that the British economy was
	“out of the danger zone”—[Official Report, 15 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 901]
	and was now a “safe haven” from the storms raging through the global economy, the Government have succeeded in steering us into a recession of their own making. They have tried to blame the instability of the eurozone, but I point them to the European Commission’s spring forecast, which says of the UK economy:
	“The main cause of weakness in 2011 was household consumption, which contracted for four consecutive quarters…Investment, which had been expected to contribute positively to growth, actually fell by 0.6% in the final quarter of 2011 and by 1.2% over the year.”
	Indeed, contrary to Government claims that storm winds from the continent blew their plan off course, the European Commission confirms that for the UK:
	“Net exports were the main source of growth in 2011, contributing 1% to GDP growth.”
	We should therefore be in no doubt and under no illusion: this is a recession made in Downing street.
	With the eurozone now teetering on the brink of another downward spiral, the real worry is that we have yet to feel the full effect on the UK of the economic turbulence on the continent. The Business Secretary is right to warn that the worst may be yet to come, which makes it all the more serious a failure to have put the UK economy in such a weak position to withstand further deteriorations in financial market confidence and export demand. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor warned over a year ago, when a hurricane is brewing, we do not rip out the foundations of the house, but that is exactly what the Government have done, and the hurricane is now gathering force.
	Let us look at what this recession means for jobs and business in our country. The latest jobs figures show that unemployment remains at a 17-year high. Youth unemployment is at more than 1 million—an issue raised in today’s debate by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). The number of 18 to 24-year-olds claiming dole for more than six months has gone up by 115% over the past year. The number of those claiming for more than 12 months is up by 213%. In the Prime Minister’s latest desperate dissimulation, the austerity he is inflicting on the country is now called simple efficiency. However, I do not see anything efficient about presiding over rising youth unemployment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) also pointed out.
	There is surely no greater waste than the waste of youth unemployment. It is a waste of talent and of life chances that will cost our economy and our Exchequer for decades to come, as the commission headed by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) set out so lucidly in its report. There is no more egregious an example of Government misspending than the billions that they are spending on benefits—the cost of their own economic failure. They are now borrowing £150 billion more to cover rising benefit bills and the loss of tax revenues as businesses go out of business.

Danny Alexander: Not only has a scheme from the port of Blyth been put forward, but the inclusion of several areas of land around the port in the enterprise zone was referred to at the time of the autumn statement. I gather that a discussion is going on within the north-east local enterprise partnership about the sites on which it would like to see the enhanced capital allowances deployed. I think the hon. Member for Wansbeck had a view about an additional site that he would like to be included in the enterprise zone. I encourage him to work with the LEP to make that case, as I said. I hope he will take the opportunity to present that argument to the Government in due course.
	The hon. Member for Blyth Valley also expressed support for the Green investment bank, whose establishment is one of the key measures in the Queen’s Speech that could play a part in boosting the economy. I do not know whether he did so in song, because I was not present for his speech. Given the potential importance of the renewables sector to his part of the world, I hope he agrees that the bank could contribute to the investment that it needs, and that the substantial £3 billion capitalisation that we provided for it in the spending review will enable it to invest in precisely the sectors that he mentioned. Those sectors were also mentioned by many Government Members who recognised that the Green investment bank was an important initiative, as, indeed, is the regional growth fund.
	Listening to the shadow Business Secretary talk about the regional growth fund, I concluded that he had picked up the wrong end of the stick, although I must
	add in fairness that his tone was not reflected in speeches on the subject from other Members on both sides of the House. The National Audit Office report made it clear that the fund had created or protected some 328,000 jobs, which is a good use of public funds. What is more, as the hon. Gentleman will see from the evidence that has been provided, for every pound that we are spending on the regional growth fund, some £6 of private investment is being unlocked. In many cases in which public money has not yet started to flow, private investment is already taking place because businesses know that they have access to the fund. I think that that is a great success story about support for investments throughout the country. Certainly we on the Government Benches are very proud of what the fund is achieving, which is why we chose to give it additional resources last year.

John Redwood: Has the Chief Secretary noticed the latest forecast, which says total City bonuses are likely to be only £2.3 billion this year, as opposed to £11.5 billion at the peak, under the Labour Government? Will he consider representations in favour of a bankers’ bonus tax in light of how little revenue it will raise compared with the original forecast?

Danny Alexander: No. I have given way to the hon. Lady’s Front-Bench colleague three times, and I am now going to press on. I have only two minutes left, and she used up plenty of time.
	There were a number of speeches about the groceries code adjudicator, including by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) and my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who played an important role in promoting the idea of the GCA and rightly welcomed the fact that the Government will take that forward. A number of comments were made, especially by Opposition Members but also from the Government Benches, on the enterprise and regulatory reform Bill. By and large, its measures on directors’ pay were welcomed, although concerns were expressed, particularly by Labour Members, about the proposals on employment law. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) made that a key point in her speech, although I noticed that she welcomed the substance of the measures in the Bill, which are to do with providing more options before a tribunal is reached to enable complainants to resolve their case without the need to go through what she rightly describes as an often painful and expensive process. It is important that those measures are carried forward, and they will make a difference for many small businesses.
	The economic context was an important theme in this debate, and Members on the Government Benches are fully aware that addressing the key issues is no easy task in the current economic climate, not least because of the crippling legacy the last Government left to us: a decade of unbalanced growth that left the UK one of the most indebted countries in the world; a decade that resulted in our having the most highly leveraged financial system of any major economy; and a decade that meant the UK entered the economic crisis with the highest structural deficit in the G7. All of that meant that the UK was one of the hardest hit countries in the world when the crisis came.
	Our recession was among the deepest and our deficit among the largest, which means that our challenge to deliver a sustainable recovery is among the greatest. Let me remind the House that when this Government came into office we inherited the largest peacetime Budget deficit this country has ever faced and the largest forecast deficit in the G20—larger than those of many of the countries mired in the sovereign debt storm in the euro area. It is only because of the decisive and immediate action we took that we have sheltered the UK from the worst of that debt storm.
	The measures in the Queen’s Speech represent part of a bold and wide-ranging programme of economic reform: a strategy to rid the economy of the debt burden left by the previous Government; a strategy to secure our stability at a time of global instability; and a strategy that puts private sector enterprise, ambition and innovation at the heart of our recovery. It is the right recipe to clean up the mess that the Labour party left us and to bring this country back to sustainable prosperity.
	The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 9( 3 )) .
	Ordered, That the debate be resumed tomorrow.

David Lammy: I am grateful for that, Mr Speaker. May I therefore refer to the extreme inconsistency between the statements made to this House and the promises made to victims shortly after the riots by those I referred to, and what we actually see taking place?
	The third issue I wish to discuss is that, under the coalition that champions the big society, philanthropic donations are now counted against riot compensation claims. Finally, I wish to draw attention to the differential treatment afforded to the Metropolitan police compared with that offered to police authorities in Merseyside, Manchester and Salford.
	Although this debate draws on the experiences of riot victims in my constituency, I know for a fact that Members in other riot areas have been affected, and many are in the House as I speak. This is not the first time that compensation of riot victims has been discussed in the Commons. Some nine months ago, the Prime
	Minister made two promises, neither of which he has honoured. To the victims of the riots he proclaimed,
	“we will help you repair the damage, get your businesses back up and running and support your communities.”
	In the same debate, the Prime Minister promised that the Government would
	“ensure the police have the funds they need to meet the cost of any legitimate claims”. —[Official Report, 11 August 2011; Vol. 531, c. 1053.]
	Seven months later, the Leader of the Opposition pressed the Prime Minister, demanding that he provide proper, clear information about the processing of claims. I, for one, have heard nothing about that. The Prime Minister promised to put the process details in the House of Commons Library after that discussion with the Leader of the Opposition. I therefore ask the Minister when the Prime Minister intends to provide the House of Commons Library with that information.
	Between 6 and 10 August 2011, more than 5,000 crimes were committed including five fatalities, 1,860 incidents of arson and criminal damage and 1,649 burglaries, 141 incidents of disorder and 366 incidents of violence against the person. In London alone, more than 171 residential and 100 commercial buildings were affected by fire at a cost of millions. The disturbances last August saw thousands of shops damaged and there were more than 3,800 claims under the Riot (Damages) Act in London alone, with liabilities estimated to be between £200 million and £300 million.
	Some shop owners had insurance, of course, but others did not. In that regard the Act represents an important means of financial support. Sevill Hassan, who owns a hair salon on Tottenham High road, was away on holiday when the riots broke out in August. She returned to find her shop front damaged and equipment stolen and looted. She was between insurers at the time of the riots and had not yet sent off her cheque to her new insurer. Sevill did manage eventually to secure a £3,000 payment under the Act, but 18 months later she is still struggling to keep her business afloat.
	Despite being labelled by many as arcane and out of date, the Riot (Damages) Act can and in many cases has helped victims of riots, particularly individuals and small businesses without a property insurance policy thanks to a clause added to the Act following the Brixton and Toxteth riots of 1981. Indeed, the Act was used as recently as 2001, following the Bradford riots, and so although the original Act might date back to 1886, there is no excuse for the Home Office’s failure to administer it in a clear and efficient way.
	When one speaks to individuals and businesses who have submitted claims through the Act, its limitations become apparent. A number of the limitations relate to the manner in which it is administered and the majority could have been avoided or minimised had the insurance industry processed its own claims. Why have the Home Office and the Metropolitan police been unable to process their claims as successfully? Perhaps that is why, when representatives of the insurance industry went to the Home Office on 18 August, after the riots, they offered to do the job for the Met. Why was that offer from the Association of British Insurers and the industry rejected out of hand? The industry processes claims every day of the week, but the Department said, “Oh no, we can do it.” Nine months later, that has not happened.
	Loss adjusters were appointed by the Home Office to manage claims. On making their claims, a number of individuals were treated insensitively by insurers and loss adjusters, many of whom failed to appreciate the devastating impact of damage caused during the riots. Victims of the riots tell me that they were asked to provide receipts, and ask how they can do so when their business has burnt to the ground. That was the insensitivity shown to them. I have heard from traders in Tottenham who claim to have been treated like criminals, rather than victims of crime.
	People with insurance were able to claim directly through their insurers, but in a constituency such as mine many people found themselves having to submit through the Act—if they were underinsured, for example. That is why this is so important. The Home Office did well to extend the period in which to make a claim from 30 to 42 days, following lobbying from the ABI. However, it took a long time to update the claim form from the 1800s. Many constituents were unable to understand the archaic language and the requirements, or did not know whether to use the form at all. As of 9 May, the Metropolitan police had received a total of 3,427 claims. Just over a quarter of those claims—912 of them—have been settled to date, and a total of just over £6 million has been paid out to victims. That works out at an average of just £7,000 per claim. There are 707 ongoing claims. I can only assume that the remaining 1,800 claims —52% of claims received—were rejected. I would be interested to know whether the Minister can reconcile the figures and say what has happened to the claims that have not been dealt with.

David Lammy: Yes, and my hon. Friend will recall the burned-out cars on Tottenham’s High road. Many of my constituents have raised the same point. That is why we need an updated Act. I hope that the Government will not recoil from having an Act at all, because it is important that in such circumstances, victims are compensated by the state.
	My hon. Friend will also recall that on 27 February, Boris Johnson said:
	“All uninsured claims submitted under the Riot Damages Act have been processed through a bureau set up by the Home Office.”
	He said that Met
	“officers have been instructed to treat these applications as a matter of priority and they guarantee that once a completed and documented claim is received, an offer (Discharge Form) will be sent within five working days.”
	For more than 707 people in London, that has not happened, so why was that claim made in February? Bad bureaucracy and poor administration is more than inefficiency; it prevents business owners, many of whom have dedicated their working lives to running a business, from picking up the pieces and moving on. For many
	riot victims—I stress that they are victims, not simply clients—an unprocessed claim form means a loss of income, sleepless nights and the brutal reality of losing a business or shutting up shop.
	The Minister knows my constituency well. I have had constituents who have ended up having heart attacks as a result of their business going under with no compensation. That is how serious this is for small businesses, which are finding things hard because of the double-dip recession.
	In response to questions on 13 March, the Home Office Minister, Lord Henley, told peers that 90% of businesses and individuals who had insurance had “received full or part” compensation. By the same date, just over half of uninsured victims had received money under the Riot (Damages) Act. Why the discrepancy between those who had insurance and had their claims processed by private insurers on the one hand, and those who were reliant on the state on the other? Their experience was completely different. It is often the most deprived, and those with the most marginal businesses, who are still waiting to receive money. That includes, of course, home owners who are relying on the Act. Given that both insured and uninsured businesses were victims, how does the Home Office justify the discrepancy in their treatment? If private insurers were able to process claims more efficiently, why did the Home Office decline the offer from the ABI?
	Does the Prime Minister agree that nearly eight months after the riots, it is unacceptable that only half of the uninsured claims in London have been paid out? Nine months on, there is a significant lack of information in the public domain regarding processing and payment of the claims. Unfortunately, no statistics on claims made in Tottenham have been released. Many aspects of the Act are still shrouded in mystery. There is a significant grey area surrounding the relationship between philanthropic donations and compensation received under the Act. According to the Act, all philanthropic donations should be deducted from the eventual compensation settlement.
	I want to pay tribute to the work of people such as Sir Bill Castell and the Prince of Wales, both of whom rang me up within hours of the riots, offering their help. Sir Bill set up a big high street fund, working with big business to help small business, only to find that that money has now been offset against the Riot (Damages) Act. Either we believe in the big society or we do not. What is the answer? What kind of society are we living in, when many victims of the riots who have had barely a few hundred pounds from that grant are still waiting for payment to get their businesses back on track?
	People say to me that when we see a tsunami or an earthquake in a developing country, we are able to act and get the funds there. Why is it any different in a major democracy and a major developed country such as ours? It must be totally unacceptable that nine months later people are expected to wait. Of course they are not waiting. They are seeing their businesses destroyed and the high road lose its vibrancy. They are feeling abandoned. I remind the Minister that the cry that we heard after the riots right across the country was, “Where are the police? Where are they?” Now we are hearing a similar cry, and I hope the media will remain true to those people and continue to press their case. They want to know where the state is, or have we rolled the state back so far that for true victims it no longer exists?
	Can the Minister assure me that measures will be taken to ensure that individuals and organisations are not put off making philanthropic donations to businesses affected by the riots, given the situation that we are in? Can the Prime Minister assure the House that information on payments made under the Riot (Damages) Act, as he said to the Leader of the Opposition, will be put in the House of Commons Library or, as he said, that he will return to the House to make a statement as swiftly as possible? I want to allow the Minister ample time to come back to me on these points, but I end by reminding her of the case of Niche Mufwankolo, who is the landlord of the Pride of Tottenham pub.
	On the night of the riots, Niche fled through an upstairs window, while downstairs rioters smashed windows, looted televisions, broke and stole his sound system and set fire to furniture. He escaped from the roof of his pub at knifepoint, and the Metropolitan Police Authority responded to him by offering just £22,000 of compensation, some £70,000 less than the claim that Niche had submitted. It should be noted that VAT was excluded from claims relating to building damage, loss and damage of contents and loss of stock, just one of the reasons given for Niche’s payout being dramatically less than anticipated. To add insult to injury, the Met lost the original invoices submitted by Niche, preventing him from making further claims.
	There is a huge disincentive to appeal any offer of compensation, as people have been waiting for months to get back on their feet, and small businesses do not have the time to be caught up in such bureaucracy.
	Many of us will have had different views about those involved in the riots, but I hope that all of us support the victims. That is why I have brought the debate to the House this evening. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Lynne Featherstone: I thank the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for raising this subject. I am mindful that this is the first debate secured specifically on riot damage compensation, and I apologise on behalf of the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who is unable to attend.
	The right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, like my own, was one of the areas severely affected by the riots last August, and I sympathise with individuals and businesses in his area and others across the country that experienced losses. He has been extremely proactive in aiding his constituents in the aftermath of the riots and helping those who were adversely affected by the events last August.
	The Government have come under considerable criticism, both during the recovery period and this evening, for the length of time that it has taken victims to receive compensation through the Riot (Damages) Act and for the perceived bureaucracy around processing claims, which has been singled out as the problem. Typically, this has been portrayed as a problem caused by the Home Office, with Opposition MPs for the most part
	helping to promulgate the myth. Most notably, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, it was referenced by the Leader of the Opposition in Prime Minister’s questions on 21 March.
	It may help to inform the debate if I present a true and current picture of the progress that has been made, but first, in case I run short of time, I want to respond to several of the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. He asked why the Government did not take up the insurance industry’s offer to process the Act’s claims. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, under the Act, liability for claims rests with police authorities, and passing on the handling of decision making on all claims would have required a change to primary legislation. We did not want to wait for primary legislation, and the simpler option, which took less time to put in place, was to draft in expertise from leading loss adjusters to the Home Office bureau. That did help in resolving and processing the claims.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked why loss adjusters insist on continually asking for outstanding documents or evidence. I had a case myself where a constituent came to me about documents that were required for a building that had been burnt down. Documentation is important to ensure that losses are substantiated as far as possible. It is not a new issue for the insurance industry and for loss adjusters who have been employed by the police authorities and the Home Office bureau, and I can confirm that reasonable loss of documentation is taken into account in the reports produced by the loss adjusters. They are aware of the issue. That is not to say that they have not asked for documentation on occasion, but if the reply is that it has been lost or burnt, they make a reasonable adjustment.
	On the question of the Prime Minister placing in the Library a document on the processes involved in processing claims, we will check whether it is in there; if it is not, it will be by the end of the week. I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman wrote to me with some details on the philanthropic questions that he raised, because this is not a matter that has come to my attention to date. I will be happy to look into that.

Lynne Featherstone: There are two types of victim, the uninsured and the insured, although, as I will explain in more detail shortly, some overlap has been created by insurance companies repudiating claims, which can lead to further uninsured claims subsequently being submitted.
	For the uninsured cases—those people who never had insurance—most of the claims originally made went to the Home Office bureau, which the Government set up in the wake of the riots in order to facilitate the process for individuals who were struggling to come to terms with the damage caused to their property and loss of possessions. The Home Office bureau received 1,261 cases. As of last week it had 68 cases left—about 5% of the original total. Of those cases, 39 have been classed as inactive. Despite repeated attempts to contact claimants or their representatives, no response has been
	received for a substantial period. The other 29 cases are largely waiting for documents to be submitted, which the bureau chases up regularly.
	The bureau has rejected 837 cases and sent 356 to the police authorities to make decisions on payments. Typically, the reason the claims were rejected is that they were not within the scope of the Act, which covers business interruption losses, personal injury, and vehicle damage, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). In some cases, the claims were rejected because individuals already had insurance cover.
	Given that the number of cases with the bureau is now relatively small, the Policing Minister has agreed that the bureau will shortly cease operations. The small number of remaining cases will be passed to local police authorities, where a more co-ordinated approach will be taken to get them resolved in the local area. The police authorities originally received 480 claims, including the 356 sent to them by the Home Office bureau. I am pleased to announce that only 26 claims are left—that is 26 too many, but nevertheless that is down to 5%. Police authorities have rejected 159 claims and settled 295 cases.
	That is not the complete picture of uninsured claims, because a number of cases were subsequently received, predominantly in the Metropolitan Police Service, where insurance companies had repudiated claims or refused to pay out because their assessed value of the claim was below the policy excess; a claim under the Act was then made directly to police authorities. A specific example of that is the case, raised by the Leader for the Opposition at Prime Minister’s questions, in which an uninsured claim was not received in the police authority until December 2011. A further delay then occurred as a result of documents not being sent to the police authority until late March, after which the claim was settled in a matter of days. Unfortunately, that case is not untypical, so the delay is not always on the part of the Home Office, the Home Office bureau or the police authority.
	To return to the “new” uninsured claims, I can also report that good progress has been made in resolving those cases. The Metropolitan Police Service received 642 such cases and has 133 left. Around half of those cases have been delayed due to documentation that has been requested by police authorities from claimants or their representatives not being submitted. Claims made to other police authorities are negligible. The category in which the greatest amount of payments remains outstanding relates to insurance companies. The Act provides for insurance companies to seek recompense from police authorities for the compensation they pay out to policyholders.